[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 24, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1751-S1774]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2016--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 3 
p.m. will be controlled by the Democrats and the time from 3 p.m. until 
3:45 p.m. will be controlled by the majority.
  The Senator from Maryland.


                           Amendment No. 362

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 362.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], for herself, Mr. 
     Wyden, and Ms. Stabenow, proposes an amendment numbered 362.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. 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 relating to 
amending the Equal Pay Act of 1963 to allow for punitive damages, limit 
 the any factor ``other than sex'' exception, and prohibit retaliation 
            against employees who share salary information)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO EQUAL PAY 
                   FOR EQUAL WORK.

       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 efforts to ensure equal pay policies and 
     practices and to reform section 6(d) of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(d)) (commonly known as 
     the ``Equal Pay Act of 1963'') to allow for punitive damages, 
     limit the exception for unequal pay described in paragraph 
     (1) of such section to business necessity rather than any 
     factor ``other than sex'', and prevent retaliation against 
     employees for sharing salary information 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 2016 through 
     2020 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2016 through 
     2025.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, my amendment is about paycheck 
fairness, a topic I know the Presiding Officer, the Senator from 
Nebraska, is absolutely familiar with. I come to the floor to finish 
the job we began with Lilly Ledbetter to end pay discrimination in the 
workplace once and for all. That is why I am offering this amendment, 
which is based on the bill I have offered in the past three Congresses. 
It is called the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  My Senate colleagues and I want to be sure women get a raise. The way 
we want to do that is to put more money in the family checkbook by 
putting change in the Federal law book.
  My amendment will do three things.
  No. 1, it will stop retaliation in the workplace for sharing pay 
information. For years, the famous Lilly Ledbetter was harassed and 
humiliated just for asking questions about her coworkers' salaries. In 
many workplaces around the country, you are forbidden to discuss shared 
pay information even if

[[Page S1752]]

you are the same lab technician, computer operator or others. This 
would stop retaliation simply for asking not only what do you make but 
what do others make doing the same work.
  It also stops employers from using any reason to pay women less. 
``Oh, they are breadwinners.'' ``Oh, he is a family man.'' ``Oh, gee, 
they do a harder job,'' when it is the same job. We have to make sure 
it is equal pay for equal work.
  This bill also allows punitive damages for women who have been 
discriminated against. When the only deterrent against pay 
discrimination is the threat of paying women backpay, discrimination 
can just be factored into the cost of doing business and treating it 
like loose change.
  Now, people say to me: Hey, Senator Barb. You led the fight on Lilly 
Ledbetter to make sure we had equal pay for equal work. Didn't we solve 
that problem?
  Well, we made a good first step. That bill kept the courthouse doors 
open for women who are discriminated against so there would not be a 
statute of limitations as defined by the original Supreme Court 
decision, but that was only a downpayment. What this amendment does is 
say we need to change the law so Lilly would not have had to sue in the 
first place. This amendment says: Put an end to the incentives that 
cause employers to think paying women less is just loose change.
  This amendment would close loopholes in the law which allow pay 
discrimination to occur in the first place. It would also put an end to 
paycheck secrecy--yes, paycheck secrecy--that makes it harder to 
uncover discrimination. It would also prohibit retaliation against 
women for even talking about pay differences. These are loopholes that 
often stop women who have endured discrimination from being fairly 
compensated.
  What are the facts? Women still earn 77 cents for every $1 a man 
makes. It is even worse for women of color. African-American women earn 
64 cents for every $1 a man makes, Hispanic women earn 54 cents for 
every $1 a man makes. For women closer to the age of retirement, the 
wage gap increases to more than $14,000 a year. It not only affects 
their pay, but it affects their retirement, and it affects their Social 
Security.
  When you earn less, you get less in your Social Security benefits 
because you are making smaller contributions to your retirement. 
Women's Social Security benefits are about 71 percent of men's 
benefits, and that is not because of the mommy factor, where women have 
taken time out of the workplace and the marketplace to be in the home 
with their children.
  Women earn 23 cents less for every $1 a man earns, even when she does 
the same job and has the same education. Women do not get a 23-percent 
discount on their student loans. They do not get a 23-percent discount 
on their utility bill. They do not get a 23-percent discount on their 
mortgage. So we end up paying the bill just for our ability to work.
  Madam President, I could go on and tell you compelling stories about 
my constituents who have shared them with me.
  I have heard from Latoya Weaver. She lives in Great Mills, MD. She is 
a single parent to three children. She worked in guest services at a 
hotel. She found out that her pay of $8 an hour--$8 an hour--was $2 
less than new males in the same position. So a new guy working in the 
same job, doing the same thing made $2 more. That makes a big 
difference when you are making $8 an hour rather than $10 an hour. She 
filed an EEOC lawsuit, and she prevailed. You cannot necessarily go to 
the EEOC in every case.
  I heard from Donna Smith, who lives on Maryland's Eastern Shore. She 
worked as a retail clerk. She was also told not to discuss her wages, 
but she found out she was being paid less than a male clerk--not 
``mail'' as in post office mail but ``male'' as in a guy--a guy clerk 
whom she actually trained and was doing the same exact job she did when 
she started. Again, in all of the effort to go to the EEOC, it was 
found that two other female workers were also discriminated against. No 
one would have known had Donna not sought out that information.
  So we can see that paycheck fairness is absolutely needed.
  There is a lot of mythology out there about the Paycheck Fairness 
Act.
  Myth No. 1, that the bill would require employers to cut the salaries 
of their male employees. The Equal Pay Act currently on the books 
prohibits employers from lowering the wages of men to make up for 
discrimination against women.
  Another myth, that the bill is unnecessary. Well, the facts speak for 
themselves. When American women who work full time year round are paid 
only 77 cents for every $1 made by their male counterparts, it speaks 
for itself.
  The wage gap is not merely a matter of choice in their occupation; 
they are paid less in the same occupation with the same education.
  Here is another myth, that the bill would subject employers to 
criminal penalties for refusing to disclose wage information. No part 
of this bill provides for criminal penalties for employers for any 
conduct. There is no criminal penalty in this bill.
  Another myth is that the bill would require the government to set 
salaries for Federal employees. Again, nothing in the Paycheck Fairness 
Act allows the Federal Government to set salaries for a public or 
private employer. So I think that speaks for itself.
  Madam President, I have a factual document from the National Women's 
Law Center. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            [From the National Women's Law Center, May 2015]

             What the Paycheck Fairness Act Would Really Do

       For nearly 50 years, the Equal Pay Act has made it illegal 
     for employers to pay unequal wages to men and women who 
     perform substantially equal work. Although enforcement of the 
     Equal Pay Act as well as other civil rights laws has helped 
     to narrow the wage gap, significant disparities remain and 
     need to be addressed. Women today still make only 77 cents 
     for every dollar paid to their male counterparts. And for 
     women of color, the gap is even larger.
       The Paycheck Fairness Act would strengthen current laws 
     against wage discrimination by protecting employees who 
     voluntarily share pay information with colleagues from 
     retaliation, fully compensating victims of sex-based pay 
     discrimination, empowering women and girls by strengthening 
     their negotiation skills, and holding employers more 
     accountable under the Equal Pay Act. Opponents of the 
     Paycheck Fairness Act have put forth rhetoric about the bill 
     that is misleading--this document contrasts the various myths 
     about the bill and explains what the Paycheck Fairness Act 
     would accomplish in reality.
       Myth: The bill would require employers to cut the salaries 
     of their male employees.
       Fact: The Equal Pay Act prohibits employers from lowering 
     the wages of men to make up for discrimination against women. 
     In fact, the first paragraph of the Act states: An ``employer 
     who is paying a wage rate differential in violation of this 
     subsection shall not, in order to comply with the provisions 
     of this subsection, reduce the wage rate of any employee.'' 
     The bill does nothing to disturb this longstanding rule.
       Myth: The bill is unnecessary because there is no wage gap.
       Fact: American women who work full time, year round are 
     paid only 77 cents for every dollar paid to their male 
     counterparts. This gap in earnings translates into $10,784 
     less per year in median earnings, leaving women and their 
     families shortchanged. The wage gap is even more substantial 
     when race and gender are considered together, with African-
     American women making only 62 cents, and Hispanic women only 
     54 cents, for every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men.
       The wage gap is not merely a matter of choice in 
     occupation--women typically are paid less than men in the 
     same occupation. This is the case whether that occupation 
     pays high or low wages, whether they work in traditionally 
     male occupations, traditionally female occupations, or 
     occupations with an even mix of men and women.
       Numerous studies show that even when all relevant career 
     and family attributes are taken into account, there is still 
     a significant, unexplained gap in men's and women's earnings. 
     Thus, even when women make the same career choices as men and 
     work the same hours, they earn less. For example, a study of 
     college graduates one year after graduation determined that 
     women earned only 95 percent of what men earned, even after 
     accounting for variables such as ``job and workplace, 
     employment experience and continuity, education and training, 
     and demographic and personal characteristics.''
       Myth: The bill would subject employers to criminal 
     penalties for refusing to disclose wage information.
       Fact: No part of the bill provides for criminal penalties 
     for employers for any conduct. But pay disparities often go 
     unnoticed because employers forbid employees from sharing 
     wage information with each other. The bill enhances 
     employees' ability to learn

[[Page S1753]]

     about wage discrimination by merely banning retaliation 
     against workers who inquire about their employers' wage 
     practices or disclose their own wages. It does not ban pay 
     secrecy policies altogether--in fact, employers with access 
     to colleagues' wage information in the course of their work, 
     such as human resources employees, may still be prohibited 
     from sharing that information.
       Myth: The bill requires the government to set salaries for 
     federal employers.
       Fact: Nothing in the Paycheck Fairness Act allows the 
     federal government to set salaries for any private employer. 
     But the tools for detecting and addressing pay disparities 
     under the Equal Pay Act have been limited by courts over 
     time. For example, courts have opened loopholes in the 
     defenses that employers are permitted to raise when seeking 
     to justify a decision to not pay workers equal wages for 
     doing substantially equal work. Some courts have said that an 
     employer may justify paying unequal wages even if there is no 
     business reason for paying men and women unequal salaries. 
     The bill also would require the Department of Labor to 
     reinstate a survey instrument that will help the Department 
     detect and remedy wage discrimination by federal contractors 
     and would serve as a critical tool in the federal 
     government's effort to enforce civil rights laws.
       Myth: There is no need for the bill after the Lilly 
     Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
       Fact: The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act restored the 
     protection against pay discrimination stripped away by the 
     Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear. But, even 
     after the Act, our existing equal pay laws remain weakened by 
     a series of other court decisions and insufficient federal 
     tools to detect and combat wage discrimination. The Act made 
     clear that each discriminatory paycheck, not just an 
     employer's original decision to engage in pay discrimination, 
     resets the period of time during which a worker may file a 
     pay discrimination claim. The steps taken in the Ledbetter 
     Act are essential, as they enable workers to bring wage 
     discrimination cases again. But the Ledbetter Act simply 
     returned the law to what it was prior to the Court's 
     decision. And wage disparities go undetected because 
     employers maintain policies that punish employees who 
     voluntarily share salary information with their coworkers. 
     The Paycheck Fairness Act would update the Equal Pay Act by 
     closing loopholes in the law and ensuring that workers will 
     no longer be punished simply for talking about their own 
     wages.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. So here we are, in 2015. It has been almost 50 years 
since the first equal pay bill was passed. For 50 years we have tried 
to have financial catchup to get equal pay for equal work, and every 
time we make a reform, there are always other loopholes. We want to 
close the loopholes. We want to end discrimination. We want to end 
retaliation. And, most of all, we want to end the fact that women often 
end up for their whole lifetime earning less. It affects the way they 
raise their families. It affects the way they pay into their pensions, 
the way they pay into their Social Security. Now we need to pay our 
respects to them and pass the paycheck fairness bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I want to thank Senator Mikulski for 
offering this really important amendment because I believe that real, 
long-term economic growth is built from the middle out, not from the 
top down. Our government and our economy should be working for all 
families, not just the wealthiest few.
  We in Congress need to be focused on raising wages and expanding 
economic security and making sure our workers have the opportunity to 
work hard and succeed. That is exactly what the amendment the Senator 
from Maryland has offered will do.
  It would build on the promise of the Equal Pay Act to help close the 
pay gap between men and women. Today, nearly half of our workforce is 
not earning equal pay for equal work. In fact, women across the 
country, as we know, get paid just 78 cents for every $1 a man makes 
for the same work. That is not just unfair to women, it hurts our 
families and it hurts our economy and we need to fix it.
  Last year, at a hearing in the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions 
Committee, we heard from a woman named Kerri. For 5 years, Kerri worked 
for an auto supplier as a supervisor. She liked her job. She did it 
well. Her boss gave her glowing performance reviews for her work. But 
when that auto industry ran into trouble, her company had to file for 
bankruptcy, and it was through those bankruptcy court reports that 
Kerri found out she was making significantly less than the men she 
supervised.
  After all those years of hard work, she found out her employer valued 
her work less just because she was a woman. She said she was 
heartbroken and embarrassed, but more than that, she told our committee 
last year that those years of lost wages affected her family for the 
rest of her life. And she is not alone.
  Across the country, pay discrimination hurts women and families' 
ability to make ends meet and get ahead in the workplace.
  I thank the Senator from Maryland for her extraordinary leadership in 
the fight for equal pay and for bringing this important amendment 
forward today. This amendment will help move us toward an economy where 
women get a fair shot at pay equity in the workplace and set us up to 
tackle pay discrimination head-on.
  Pay discrimination, by the way, is not just unfair to women, it is 
bad for our families, and it is a real and persistent problem that 
hurts our economy.
  It is important to remember that women's roles in our economy has 
shifted dramatically in the last few decades. Women now make up nearly 
half of our workforce. Today, 60 percent of families rely on earnings 
from both parents--up from 37 percent in 1975. More than ever, today 
women are likely to be the primary breadwinners in their family.
  So we have to make sure working women can succeed in today's economy 
because their success is critical to families' economic security and to 
our Nation's economy as a whole.
  According to a recent report, closing the pay gap between men and 
women would add $446 billion to our economy. I hope we can all agree 
that in the 21st century workers should be paid fairly for the work 
they do regardless of their gender, and I hope we can agree we need to 
expand economic security for more families. That should be our mission 
to move our country forward.
  This amendment supports the basic principle of fairness in the 
workplace. It would help women, families, and our Nation's economy.
  I want to make this clear: I am urging my colleagues to vote for the 
Mikulski amendment--the only proposal on the table right now that would 
move us toward a real solution to this problem.
  Senator Mikulski has been our leader on this issue. I hope 
Republicans will join Democrats on real solutions and work with us to 
create jobs, increase wages, and expand economic security that benefits 
all workers and families, not just the wealthiest few.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, this is an important moment in the 
Senate each year because we try to define what our values are and the 
way we spend our money.
  If you want to know a family's values, take a look at the family 
budget. Are they putting some money away for their young son or 
daughter to go to college, making sure they can own a home, paying 
their bills on a regular basis, or are they wasting money on things 
they can't afford? The budget tells a story about values.
  This budget presented by the Republicans tells another story. It 
tells a story about America's future.
  I have a friend back in Springfield, IL. He has been a friend for 
years and years. Ten years ago, his wife was diagnosed with 
Alzheimer's. His life changed dramatically. He could no longer go to 
work on a regular basis. He devoted every waking minute to his wife. 
She is still alive today and struggling, but that family was different. 
Their lives were different. Across America, families just like his 
family learn about the diagnosis of Alzheimer's every day. Do you know 
how often we diagnose an American with Alzheimer's? Once every 68 
seconds. The millions who are now afflicted by that disease--many of 
them have a very tough future ahead of them, as do their families.
  What does that have to do with this political debate? It has a lot to 
do with it. It has to do with some basic things. First, should we 
continue to cut the money for medical research in America? The 
Republican budget says: Yes. We can't afford medical research.
  Really? Well, last year, we spent $200 billion in Medicare and 
Medicaid on Alzheimer's victims alone--$200 billion.

[[Page S1754]]

When we asked for $3 or $4 billion more for medical research in the 
hopes we can find a way to delay the onset of Alzheimer's or, God 
willing, even find a cure for it--we will more than pay back the money 
we invest in research. But the Republican budget says that is something 
we cannot afford in America today.
  When it comes to those who are suffering from Alzheimer's, how do 
they get by? Many of them get by with Medicare, which, of course, is 
the insurance policy for the elderly and disabled. But this budget cuts 
Medicare. Many low-income victims of that disease and many others rely 
on Medicaid, but this budget makes dramatic cuts in Medicaid.
  That is the vision the Republicans present to us in their budget--the 
vision of an America that cannot afford to do the research to find 
cures for diseases such as Alzheimer's, cancer, diabetes, and the list 
goes on. They see an America where we cannot afford to help people who 
are struggling to get by.
  This budget proposes takes 26 million Americans off of health 
insurance. I will repeat that--26 million Americans off of health 
insurance. Is that the answer to America's future? Have you ever been 
the father of a sick child and not had health insurance? I have. I will 
never forget it as long as I live. I felt helpless and worried that my 
little daughter was not going to get the right care she needed. Thank 
God the day came when I was covered with health insurance and could get 
her the best. But I think about the millions of Americans who never saw 
that day and the fact that 26 million Americans would lose health 
insurance because of the Republican budget. We are a better nation than 
that. We should prepare for a better future than one where the have-
nots are growing in number.
  The sad reality is that the Republican budget, although it finally 
answers its political prayer and eliminates the Affordable Care Act, 
still collects all of the revenue from the Affordable Care Act. They 
will never be able to explain that one to us.
  How will they explain to the millions of seniors who are under 
Medicare that they are eliminating the program that reduces the cost of 
prescription drugs? These are seniors on fixed incomes who are trying 
to stay healthy and independent at home and who depend on drugs that 
could be pretty expensive. The Republican budget eliminates that 
provision in the Affordable Care Act which helps those seniors pay for 
their prescription drugs--the so-called doughnut hole.
  As I go through the lengthy list of what the Republicans have done in 
their budget, I have to ask, is this their vision of America--fewer 
people having health insurance, fewer seniors being able to afford the 
prescription drugs they need to get by, cutting Medicaid, where we 
provide prenatal care for moms so the babies are healthy? For goodness' 
sake, it is not only the right thing to do, it is the economic thing to 
do. A sick baby is a tough challenge for any family, but it is a 
challenge for all of us. The medical bills a premature baby might incur 
far exceeds the cost of good prenatal care so the mom and baby are 
healthy. But that is just another area of cutbacks when it comes to 
this Republican budget.
  This budget is certainly not going to become the law of the land. I 
believe even some Republicans will have a struggle trying to vote for 
it or explain it.
  More, importantly, though, I hope this budget is a chance for us to 
have a conversation about what middle-income America is going to look 
like in the future. I think that is the key to America's success.
  We talk a lot about income inequality. To put it in a few words, it 
means that a lot of families are working hard every single darn day and 
they cannot make ends meet. They are living paycheck to paycheck. What 
are we doing for them? This Republican budget cuts the available 
college assistance for their kids to go to school. That doesn't help 
that middle-income family. This Republican budget doesn't invest in 
America when it comes to education. This Republican budget cuts back on 
the help to schools to make sure they are producing graduates with the 
skills to compete in the 21st century.
  If we really want to focus on helping middle-income families, we 
cannot vote for this Republican budget. It is a set of priorities for 
them which America really cannot accept.
  As Senator Sanders has said--our ranking member on the Budget 
Committee--we need to work to give middle-income families in this 
country a fighting chance. This bill does not do that. Sadly, this bill 
makes too many cuts in too many critical areas.
  I am going to offer an amendment to this bill. See if you like this 
idea. I think it is a good one. My colleagues will get to vote on it. 
Here is what it says. We have a tax code full of provisions to 
encourage businesses to do certain things. We give them deductions, 
credits, incentives to do things, such as drilling for oil, building 
wind turbines, so many things--some good, some bad; it depends on your 
point of view.
  I suggest that we put a provision in our Tax Code that says we will 
provide a tax credit to companies that stay in the United States and 
don't bail out and head to a foreign country, companies that invest in 
American jobs by maintaining or increasing the number of workers in the 
United States compared to the number of workers overseas.
  Secondly, those companies will get a tax credit if their corporation 
pays fair wages by paying most employees a wage so that a family of 
three doesn't have to depend on the government for a safety net 
program. That is about $15 an hour.
  If a company keeps jobs in the United States and pays about $15 an 
hour as a minimum, we will give them a tax credit.
  Those companies should also provide quality health insurance for 
their employees. Who would disagree with that one? They should also 
prepare their workers for retirement by providing a pension or 401(k) 
with fair employer contributions.
  The last point is that those companies should support our veterans, 
our troops, and people with disabilities by giving them a chance to 
work there.
  How about those companies? From where I am sitting, those are 
patriotic American companies that deserve a break in the Tax Code as 
much, if not more, than any other company.
  I will bring that amendment to the floor and let my colleagues vote 
on it. I hope we can get a bipartisan consensus. We ought to create 
incentives for companies to stay in the United States, employ 
Americans, pay a good wage, provide health insurance and pensions, and 
give a break to veterans and people with disabilities who are applying 
for jobs.
  Let's have some priorities that reflect the future of a growing, 
solid America--an America with a growing middle class.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                           Amendment No. 362

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I rise in very strong support of 
Senator Mikulski's amendment on equal pay for equal work for the women 
of our country. Senator Mikulski has been a tireless advocate for 
policies that bolster the American middle class and has been a champion 
for many years for pay equity for women, and I thank the Senator from 
Maryland for all she has done. I also concur with the strong remarks 
made by Senator Murray, who has also been a champion for pay equity.
  To my mind, it is very hard to defend the current reality in which 
women continue to earn 78 cents on the dollar compared to men. We want 
to end that discrimination against women workers. This is not only an 
issue of justice, it is also an issue of economics because when we 
establish pay equity in this country--equal pay for equal work--
millions of women will receive higher pay and many of them and their 
families will leave the ranks of the poor. This is an extraordinarily 
important amendment for justice, and it is an important amendment for 
economic rights.
  The pay gap we see in this country is found at every level of 
education and at every stage of a career. No matter how hard women 
work, it is next to impossible to overcome it because they move up the 
ranks, but there is still pay inequity.
  The pay equity gap has a significant bearing on the economic status 
of female-led households. Only 18 percent of families headed by single 
moms have economic security. Female-headed

[[Page S1755]]

households are twice as likely to live in poverty as male-headed 
households, and more than half of poor children live in female-headed 
households. It is no surprise that a lifetime of lower earnings results 
in less retirement savings and fewer Social Security benefits for 
women.
  Senior women are twice as likely as senior men to live in poverty, 
and the average senior woman receives approximately $4,000 less a year 
than a senior man.
  Senior women are more likely than senior men to rely on Social 
Security as their sole source of income, especially if they are 
unmarried.
  My State of Vermont has done better than most in terms of pay equity 
and, in fact, is first in the Nation in making sure women get equal pay 
for equal work. But even in the State of Vermont, which leads the 
Nation in this area, women are still only earning 91 cents for every 
dollar men make. We have done better than the rest of the country, and 
we still have more to do, but the rest of the country has a whole lot 
more to do if we are going to fulfill the promise of equal pay for 
equal work.
  I hope very much that we will all be supporting Senator Mikulski's 
very important amendment.
  In terms of the overall Republican budget--and I say this with all 
due respect--one of the reasons I suspect that the media is not 
particularly interested in this budget is because when they look at it, 
they find it to be so preposterous, so unbelievable, and so unrealistic 
that nobody really takes it seriously, and certainly many of the major 
provisions in it are not going to be turned into law.
  I will go out on a limb, but I think I am fairly safe in saying that 
President Obama is not going to sign legislation that abolishes 
ObamaCare. Maybe I am wrong, but I think it is fairly safe to say that. 
The Republican budget wastes a whole lot of time and energy by 
proposing the repeal of ObamaCare.
  I will tell everyone what the repeal of the Affordable Care Act would 
mean in this country, and I know people will think I am exaggerating. I 
am not exaggerating, and if I am not telling the truth, I want my 
Republican friends to come down here--or when they get the floor--and 
say: Senator Sanders was inaccurate. Please tell me that. We have read 
the legislation, and I am not inaccurate.
  If they repeal the Affordable Care Act, it will eliminate health 
insurance coverage for 16 million people. Sixteen million people would 
lose the health insurance they currently have.

  Today, we are the only major country on Earth that doesn't guarantee 
health care to all people. Today, despite the modest gains of the 
Affordable Care Act, 35 million Americans have no health insurance. So 
the Republicans say, 35 million without health insurance--that is not 
enough. Let's raise that number to 51 million by eliminating the 
Affordable Care Act.
  They go further than that. The Republicans say we should cut Medicaid 
by $400 billion over the next decade. Medicaid is the program that 
provides health insurance for lower-income Americans as well as--very 
significantly, older people who are in nursing homes. So if people 
think this is just a low-income issue--if people think it is not a 
middle class issue--think again, because it just might be your mom who 
is 90 years of age who is in a nursing home which is being paid by 
Medicaid. It could be your dad who is dealing with Alzheimer's in a 
nursing home being paid for by Medicaid.
  What the Republicans propose is a $400 billion cut over the next 
decade which would deny health insurance to an additional 11 million 
Americans, including millions of children.
  My arithmetic might not be too good, but I think if we add 16 million 
who lose health insurance through the ending of the Affordable Care Act 
to 11 million who lose health insurance by a $400 billion cut in 
Medicaid, that means--16 plus 11 is 27--27 million Americans would lose 
health insurance, almost doubling the number of people who don't have 
health insurance.
  Does anybody in their right mind take this proposal seriously? It is 
beyond comprehension. It would cause massive chaos and disruption in 
the United States of America.
  This means that low-income, pregnant women who need to make sure--as 
Senator Durbin mentioned a moment ago--that they get the health care 
they need when they are pregnant would lose their health insurance. A 
kid who is in a car who has an automobile accident would lose his or 
her health insurance. A worker who feels a pain in his chest and needs 
to go to the doctor--he doesn't have any health insurance, doesn't go 
to the doctor, dies. Well, that is a result of cutting 27 million 
people off of health insurance.
  So in a certain sense we needn't discuss the issue terribly much 
because it is such an absurd proposal that I don't think there are too 
many people who would take it seriously.
  We should also understand that when my Republican colleagues talk 
about ending the Affordable Care Act, what they are also doing is 
denying over 2 million young adults the right to stay on their parents' 
health insurance plan until the age of 26. As a result of the 
Affordable Care Act--previously children would be dropped from their 
parents' health insurance when they reached 21. The Affordable Care Act 
keeps them covered until they are 26. So suddenly, if one is 24 years 
of age and they have health insurance through their parents' health 
program, they are gone, they are out.
  The Affordable Care Act would bring us back to a very dark age in 
America's medical history. That was the time not so many years ago, 
before the ACA, when if a person had a preexisting condition--can we 
imagine that? Now we think it is so crazy. It is hard to believe this 
existed 7 or 8 years ago. A woman walks into an insurance company 
looking for health insurance and she says: Yes, I had breast cancer 10 
years ago, and I had an operation dealing with breast cancer.
  The insurance company says: Oh, you had breast cancer? We can't cover 
you. That might recur.
  Somebody else walks in and says: Well, I had a heart attract or I had 
a stroke 8 years ago.
  Oh, that is a preexisting condition. You are discriminated against. 
We don't want you. You might get sick again.
  Incredibly enough, then, the people who needed insurance the most are 
the people to whom insurance companies said: Sorry, we are not going to 
provide insurance to you. The Republican budget brings back those dark 
days.
  The Republican budget will say to insurance companies again that 
being a woman is an illness, being pregnant is an illness. Insurance 
companies would be able to discriminate against women and charge them 
extra for the crime of being a woman. Does that make sense to anybody? 
I don't think so. But that is, in fact, what is in the Republican 
budget.
  We have worked long and hard. This is an issue that has been dear to 
my heart for a very long time, and that is the knowledge that many of 
our seniors cannot afford the prescription drugs they need. Because of 
the power of the pharmaceutical companies in this country, our people 
are forced into paying the highest prices in the world for prescription 
drugs. That is just the simple reality.
  Another very serious problem is that generic drug prices are soaring. 
We have many seniors and many Americans who have a variety of 
illnesses. They go to the doctor, the doctor writes a prescription, and 
do we know what happens? I remember talking to a doctor in the northern 
part of Vermont who said her guess was that one out of four of her 
patients did not fill the prescriptions they wrote because they simply 
can't afford them. And when one is older, by definition, one is often 
sicker and one needs medicine.
  The Republican budget resolution we are debating now would increase 
prescription drug prices for some 4 million seniors and persons with 
disabilities who are on the Medicare Part D Program by reopening the 
doughnut hole. For years we have tried to close that hole and make sure 
the elderly do not have to pay for prescription drug costs out of their 
own pockets. The Republican budget would undo the progress we have 
made.
  The bottom line of the Republican budget suggests the huge 
philosophical divide that exists in this Chamber. But, interestingly 
enough, I don't think it exists within the American people. I think the 
more the American people

[[Page S1756]]

understand about the Republican budget, the more they will understand 
that something is fundamentally wrong with that budget.
  Where many of us come from is we look at an America in which the 
wealthiest people are doing phenomenally well. I had a chart up 
yesterday which was, to me, really extraordinary. It pointed out that 
in the last 2 years, the 14 wealthiest people in this country--all 
multibillionaires--combined, saw an increase in their wealth in a 2-
year period--14 people--of $157 billion. Fourteen people in a 2-year 
period saw a $157 billion increase in their wealth. That is literally 
beyond comprehension. That increase in wealth in a 2-year period is 
more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of the American people own in 
their entirety.
  Some of us believe that when multibillionaires see a huge increase in 
their wealth such that the top one-tenth of 1 percent now own almost 
more wealth than the bottom 90 percent, maybe they should be asked to 
pay more in taxes. That is what we believe. Our Republican colleagues 
disagree. They have nothing of significance to say about income and 
wealth inequality, and their view is that if we want to deal with the 
deficit and we want to deal with the national debt, the only way to go 
forward is to make horrendous catastrophic cuts in programs that 
middle-income and working-class people desperately need--programs they 
desperately need.
  So I have spoken a little bit about the Republican cuts in health 
care, but I also should mention that there are major cuts in education. 
I can tell my colleagues, because I have had a number of town meetings 
on this issue in my State of Vermont, almost all of the young people I 
talk to are extremely worried about the high cost of college and about 
the debts that are wrapped around their shoulders when they graduate 
from college.
  What does the Republican budget do to address the crisis of the 
affordability of college and the deep debts millions of our young 
people face when they leave school? Well, instead of addressing the 
problem, they make it even worse. It is hard to believe, but it is 
true. The Republican budget would eliminate mandatory Pell grants. Pell 
grants are the Federal program that helps low-income and working-class 
students get help in going to college. So at a time when it is harder 
to afford college, the Republican proposal eliminates mandatory 
programs, cutting this program by nearly $90 billion over the next 10 
years, which would increase the cost of a college education for more 
than 8 million Americans.
  Now, what can we say about that? People today can't afford to go to 
college. Students are leaving school deeply in debt. And what the 
Republicans say is let's cut $90 billion in mandatory Pell grant 
funding and increase the cost of a college education for more than 8 
million Americans.
  I can tell my colleagues that in Vermont--and throughout this 
country, I know--working-class families have a very difficult time 
finding quality, affordable child care. The Republican budget addresses 
this problem by making a bad situation worse and by coming forward with 
a budget which would mean that 110,000 fewer young children would be 
able to enroll in Head Start over the next 10 years.
  We need to expand Head Start. We need to expand preschool education. 
We need to expand child care. The most important years of a human 
being's life are 0 to 4 years old. Those little kids need the 
intellectual and emotional nourishment that good preschool education 
and child care provides them. What is the Republican proposal? Knock 
110,000 kids off of Head Start.
  Under the Republican budget, 1.9 million fewer students would receive 
the academic help they need to succeed in school by cutting about $12 
billion in the title I education program which is focused on the needs 
of lower income kids. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
would be cut by $10 billion.
  So here is the point. At the end of the day, what politics is about 
is which side are people on. Are people on the side of millionaires and 
billionaires and large campaign contributors or are people on the side 
of working families who are struggling to keep their heads above water 
economically, who are trying to figure out how they are going to send 
their kids to college. They are trying to figure out how they are going 
to help take care of their parents. They are trying to figure out how 
they are going to pay their rent or, in some cases, even pay for their 
groceries. That is what this debate is about.
  What the Republicans are saying loudly and clearly is the rich are 
getting phenomenally richer; we are not going to ask them to pay a 
nickel more in taxes. Corporations are enjoying record-breaking 
profits, and we have major corporation after major corporation paying 
zero in Federal income tax because they stash their money in tax havens 
so they can avoid paying taxes to the U.S. Government, but we are not 
going to ask them to pay a nickel more in taxes.
  That is what this debate is about. Which side are you on? I think the 
vast majority of the people in this country want the Senate to stand up 
for the middle class, for the working families of this country, and ask 
the billionaires and the large, multinational corporations to start 
paying their fair share of taxes.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, last month President Obama released his 
fiscal year 2016 budget proposal. Americans could be forgiven for 
thinking it was created in a vacuum, since the proposal completely 
ignores our current fiscal reality. Six years ago, when the President 
took office, our massive debt was already a massive $10.6 trillion. For 
the past 6 years of the President's administration, our national debt 
has increased by more than $7.5 trillion, to a dangerously high $18.2 
trillion. That kind of debt slows economic growth, threatens government 
programs such as Social Security and Medicare, and jeopardizes 
America's future. But apparently the President is not concerned because 
the President's budget proposal would increase our national debt to a 
staggering $25 trillion-plus over the next 10 years.
  Let me repeat that. Over the next 10 years, the President's budget 
would increase our national debt to more than $25 trillion. Now, I 
don't need to tell the American people that kind of debt is 
unsustainable. American families know you can't keep racking up debt 
indefinitely, and they know the solution to being in debt is not 
increasing spending.
  It is too bad nobody in the White House has that same kind of common 
sense. The President's budget would increase spending by 65 percent 
over the next 10 years. If a family already in debt tried increasing 
spending that way, they would very quickly end up bankrupt. They would 
lose their home, their cars, their credit. Well, the government works 
the same way. The government may be able to keep up appearances a 
little longer, but sooner or later unchecked government spending 
results in financial ruin. It has happened in other countries, and it 
will happen here if we don't take action.
  If we keep racking up debt the way we have been going, we are not 
going to be able to pay for our priorities. Social Security, Medicare, 
national defense, national security, infrastructure--all these 
priorities could face huge cuts if we don't get our Nation on a sound 
fiscal footing.
  Last week, Senate Republicans introduced a budget blueprint for 
fiscal year 2016 that would balance the budget in 10 years and put our 
Nation on a path to fiscal health. Instead of ignoring our Nation's 
fiscal problems, it promotes spending restraint, it creates a framework 
for Congress and the President to come together on long-term solutions. 
While it is not a perfect plan--it doesn't solve every one of our 
Nation's problems--it gets things moving in the right direction.
  First, the Senate Republican budget balances. The President's budget 
never balances--not in 10 years, not in 75 years, not ever. The 
President may think we can keep spending more than we take in 
indefinitely, but the fact is we can't. We need to get to a place where 
balanced budgets--not deficits--are the new normal. Under the Senate

[[Page S1757]]

Republicans' budget, our Nation would achieve a $3 billion surplus by 
the year 2025, and our budget encourages honest accounting.
  For example, our budget would provide for the Congressional Budget 
Office to score legislation increasing the deficit by $5 billion or 
more not just over 10 years but over 40 years. Typically, the 
Congressional Budget Office estimates the cost of legislation over a 
10-year period. These estimates can be misleading because many pieces 
of legislation start out by costing relatively little but end up 
costing huge amounts in the long-term. By looking at the 40-year cost 
of legislation instead of the 10-year cost, we can get a much clearer 
view of a bill's true cost and the effect it will have on the debt.
  Our budget also makes economic growth a priority. Almost 6 years 
after the recession ended, millions of Americans are still struggling 
and opportunities for advancement are still few and far between. A big 
reason for that is the oppressive, big government policies and deficit 
spending of the Obama administration. Our budget would help get the 
government off the back of the economy by limiting the growth of 
spending and reducing the debt.
  On the jobs front, the Senate Republicans' budget would pave the way 
for the removal of inefficient and ineffective government regulations 
that are making it difficult and expensive for many businesses to hire 
new workers and create new opportunities. Our budget also lays the 
groundwork for an overhaul of our outdated Tax Code, which needs to be 
reformed to lessen the tax burden facing families and to encourage 
businesses to create American jobs.
  Yesterday, we celebrated the fifth anniversary of the President's 
budget-busting health care law. Five years on, the President's health 
care law has resulted in higher costs, lost health care plans, reduced 
access to doctors, and new burdens on businesses, large and small. The 
health care law's latest disasters include incorrect tax forms 
dispatched to nearly 1 million Americans and surprise tax bills for 
tens of thousands of households in this country. It is no surprise that 
according to a recent poll, over 60 percent of voters have an 
unfavorable view of the Democrats' signature law. Senate Republicans 
promised the American people we would do our best to repeal ObamaCare 
and replace it with real health care reform, and our budget provides 
the framework for that process to move forward.
  ObamaCare has failed to provide the health care solutions the 
President promised. It is time to replace this law with reforms that 
will actually make health care more affordable and accessible and that 
will not put government between patients and doctors.
  Finally, our budget would start the process of putting major 
entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare on a sounder 
footing going forward. Right now the Social Security trust fund is 
headed toward bankruptcy. If we do not take action, Social Security 
recipients could be facing a 25-percent cut in benefits in 2033.
  Medicare faces similar challenges to those faced by the Social 
Security Program. Under the worst-case scenario, the Medicare trust 
fund could become insolvent as early as in 2021. That is just 6 short 
years away. The Senate Republican budget would help preserve Medicare 
by extending the trust fund solvency by an additional 5 years, which 
would protect retiree benefits while giving policymakers additional 
time to ensure that this program provides support to seniors for 
decades to come.
  Our country is not in the best fiscal shape, but it is not too late 
to do something about it. Senate Republicans have proposed and produced 
a responsible budget that will fund our Nation's priorities while 
restraining spending growth and driving down our Nation's deficit. This 
budget will give the American people a more efficient, a more 
effective, and a more accountable government. I look forward to passing 
it this week and to getting our Nation back on the path to fiscal 
health, which starts with a balanced budget.
  We cannot continue down the path we are on. The American people 
deserve better. We should give them better. For the first time in most 
of the years I have been here, we are actually going to have a budget 
on the floor of the Senate that balances in 10 years. That is something 
I think the American people who sit around their household and sit 
around their kitchen tables trying to make these hard decisions for 
themselves and their families--that is what they deserve and that is 
what they expect. That is what we are going to deliver.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.


                           Amendment No. 409

  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 409.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mrs. Fischer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 409.

  Mrs. FISCHER. 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 relating to 
promoting equal pay, which may include preventing discrimination on the 
basis of sex and preventing retalition against employees for seeking or 
                      discussing wage information)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO PROMOTING 
                   EQUAL PAY.

       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 promoting equal pay, which may include preventing 
     discrimination on the basis of sex and preventing retaliation 
     against employees for seeking or discussing wage information, 
     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 2016 through 2020 or the period of the total of fiscal 
     years 2016 through 2025.

  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, as a strong supporter of equal pay for 
equal work, I am pleased to offer this amendment to combat pay 
discrimination in the workplace. Our solution provides a reasonable, 
fact-based approach to equip Americans with the knowledge and the tools 
they need to fight discrimination. This amendment contains language 
similar to President Obama's April 2014 Executive order, clearly 
stating that employees cannot be punished for exercising their First 
Amendment rights by speaking with employers or coworkers about their 
wages.
  Furthermore, this amendment does not authorize any new Federal 
regulations, nor does it compel employers to disclose salary 
information. It simply prevents punitive actions against employees 
seeking information.
  Women want good-paying jobs. That means we need policies to promote 
economic growth and opportunities for all Americans. This is a simple 
amendment. This is an amendment that would create a deficit-neutral 
reserve fund to promote equal pay by reinforcing a commitment to 
existing law. Every Senator in here supports equal pay for equal work. 
That is existing law.
  This amendment is a chance to not just reaffirm support for the 
principles of equal pay for equal work, but also for free speech. This 
free speech includes the right to discuss wage information with 
coworkers. This amendment would prevent retaliation from employers 
against employees who discuss wages with other employees or seek such 
information from their employers. Importantly, this amendment does not 
authorize any new Federal regulations, nor does it compel employers to 
disclose that salary information. It simply prevents punitive action 
against employees who seek or share wage information.
  I believe this amendment is something all of us in this Chamber can 
support.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, budgets are all about priorities. It is 
about living within your means and not mortgaging our children's future 
by overspending money we do not have that we are going to have to ask 
them to repay. When it comes to priorities, I cannot think of a higher 
priority for the Federal Government--I am not

[[Page S1758]]

talking about State or local government, I am talking about the Federal 
Government--I cannot think of a higher priority for the Federal 
Government than national security.
  That was one of the basic reasons the United States of America was 
originally created--for mutual defense and national security. This 
budget, importantly, helps set the course for the future security of 
not only this country but also of the world, by funding our military 
services. It is no secret--because we see it in the headlines every 
day, we see it on television, we see it online--we are living in an 
increasingly dangerous world. We would prefer that it be otherwise, but 
the truth is different.
  All we need to do is take a look at the stories from--well, let's 
pick last week. Russia is threatening to point nuclear weapons at 
Danish military ships, trying to bully another European country into 
not playing a role in NATO and its missile defense shield, in 
particular.
  In the Middle East, Yemen is on the brink of a civil war that would 
bring even more instability to an already unstable region.
  Then there is Iran. Just this last weekend, the Supreme Leader of the 
regime that the Obama administration is so committed to working out a 
nuclear deal with called for ``death to America.''
  The American people understand this is an increasingly dangerous 
world and we are not safer today than we were when this administration 
started. In fact, things are more tenuous, less stable.
  Last month, the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, 
testified before Congress that after the final analysis is complete, 
the year 2014 is likely to go down as ``the most lethal year for global 
terrorism in the 45 years such data has been compiled.'' That is a 
quote--``the most lethal year for global terrorism in the 45 years such 
data has been compiled.''
  Preliminary data for the first 9 months of 2014 shows nearly 13,000 
terrorist attacks across the world that have taken the lives of 31,000 
people. That is just the first 9 months of 2014. With so many different 
threats out there, and untold twists and turns in global security in 
the coming months and years, we need a national defense that ensures 
our armed services are prepared not just to respond to today's threats 
but tomorrow's threats, whenever and wherever they occur.
  The brave men and women who serve in the Armed Forces are, without a 
doubt, the best in the world. But they cannot fight wars and they 
cannot keep us safe, they cannot maintain the peace, without the 
backing from Congress to ensure they have the resources they need. This 
budget we will pass this week does just that. It keeps that sacred bond 
and commitment to our men and women in uniform, and it, in effect, says 
to them: If you are brave enough and you are patriotic enough to serve 
in the U.S. military, we will make sure you have the resources 
necessary to do your job.
  The budget we are debating today provides $612 billion in defense 
spending for this year. Some people may say: That is too much money. 
Well, the fact is we know that the United States is the one 
irreplaceable national security force in the world, not just for us but 
also for our friends and allies.
  A strong America, as Ronald Reagan demonstrated, means a more 
peaceful world. Ironically, those who want to slash our defense 
spending and say, we cannot afford it, are sending a signal that 
America is retreating from the world stage. When America retreats and 
its leadership recedes, then the bullies and thugs and pirates fill 
that gap. It is a law of nature.
  This budget will provide certainty and stability in funding for our 
armed services, as they will not be required to make across-the-board 
spending cuts this year. In fact, under our budget, defense spending 
increases every year after fiscal year 2016. But the truth is, we do 
not have a crystal ball. We cannot forecast future world events that 
our armed services will need to respond to. That is why this budget 
also includes a deficit-neutral reserve fund to allow our military to 
react to a changing threat situation and make additional investments as 
necessary throughout the 10-year budget window. This fund could be used 
to further invest in world-class training for our armed services or 
otherwise enhance military readiness, or even modernize critical 
military platforms.
  In other words, this fund will help Congress work together to 
increase defense spending further and to keep our commitment, not just 
to the brave volunteers who wear the uniform of the U.S. military, but 
our commitment as Members of Congress to do our job and to make sure 
the Federal Government does its job when it comes to national security. 
It does so while maintaining fiscal discipline.
  I am committed to working with my colleagues to achieve both of these 
goals. It is so important for our military to stay prepared, because 
the problems facing our country have rarely been more significant. That 
is not just my assessment, that is the assessment of Dr. Henry 
Kissinger, the former Secretary of State.
  Earlier this year at the Senate Armed Services Committee, Dr. 
Kissinger said, ``The United States has not faced a more diverse and 
complex array of crises since the end of the Second World War.''
  Let me say that again. ``The United States has not faced a more 
diverse and complex array of crises since the end of the Second World 
War.''
  The scale of the challenges we face is matched by the consequences of 
us handling these challenges poorly and failing to meet our 
responsibilities as Members of Congress to make sure our men and women 
in uniform have the resources they need to do the job we have asked 
them to do and which they have volunteered to do.
  That is why it is so vitally important that we continue our 
commitment to our armed services, that we fund them fully and we give 
them the flexibility to react to changing conditions around the world. 
This budget does all of that. As threats continue to mount, this budget 
will ensure the U.S. military remains unrivaled and that it has the 
tools it needs to keep our country and the rest of the world peaceful 
and safe.
  Mr. President, later on this afternoon, we are going to give all 
Members of the Senate a chance to vote on the President's proposed 
budget. I will vote no. That is probably no surprise to anyone, but I 
think everyone in this Chamber deserves the opportunity to express 
themselves by voting on the President's proposed budget.


                           Amendment No. 357

  (Purpose: To raise taxes and spending by enacting President Obama's 
                        fiscal year 2016 budget)

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending 
amendment and call up my amendment No. 357.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 357.

  Mr. CORNYN. 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 printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. CORNYN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to address the Senate as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator from South Carolina comes to the floor, 
which I believe he will, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to 
engage in a colloquy with the Senator from South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                Ukraine

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on Sunday, I was in the city of Chicago. I 
had been invited by the Ukrainian-American community to speak to a 
large gathering. There are many Ukrainian Americans who have chosen the 
city of Chicago to live in and work. They have

[[Page S1759]]

made an enormous contribution to the city and to the State of Illinois.
  I spoke to several hundred, some of whom had not that long ago been 
in Ukraine. It was very moving because these people who love America 
but also love the country of their birth or origin are now watching 
their country being dismembered by Vladimir Putin and the Russians and 
watching the United States of America fail to help them, literally, at 
all.
  In case my colleagues have forgotten, the United States of America, 
this President, has refused to provide not only defensive weapons to 
Ukraine--I would remind you what we all know; that there are literally 
hundreds, if not thousands, of Russian troops inside of eastern 
Ukraine, Russian weapons. Remember, it was Russian equipment--if not 
Russians themselves--that shot down the Malaysian jetliner, and we have 
sat by and watched it on the delusionary view of the President of the 
United States that he doesn't want to ``provoke Vladimir Putin.''
  The Senator from South Carolina and I predicted every single move 
Vladimir Putin has taken. By the way, I am pleased to be again 
sanctioned by Vladimir Putin. I wear it as a badge of honor.
  So we have watched as they went into Crimea, in order that Vladimir 
Putin could have the naval base at Sevastopol, then into eastern 
Ukraine.
  Then a Malaysian airliner was shot down. We all seem to have 
forgotten about that. Sanctions have been imposed on Vladimir Putin, 
none of which have had any significant effect, and the aggression 
continues.
  Now there is a pause while more Russian equipment comes into eastern 
Ukraine, and his next target will be the city of Mariupol so he can 
complete his land bridge ambition to Crimea.
  Right now, he is having to resupply Crimea from air and sea, which is 
very expensive, but Mariupol will be next. Then, depending on whether 
he gets away with it, the pressure will increase on Moldova, and 
pressures are already being exerted on the Baltic countries as well.
  Our European friends, with the leadership of the United States of 
America, is conducting itself in the finest tradition of Neville 
Chamberlain. It was in the 1930s when we watched Hitler go into one 
area of another, usually in the name of ``German-speaking peoples.''
  So I must say the people--the wonderful Ukrainian-American group I 
spoke to on Saturday--is puzzled, sad, and angry that the United States 
of America will not even give them weapons with which to defend 
themselves.
  We have given them, my dear friends, MREs. We have gone from the West 
and democracy's arsenal to the West's linen closet.
  So I say, again, this is a shameful chapter in American history. It 
is shameful. It is shameful we will not at least provide these people 
with weapons to defend themselves as they watch for the first time in 
70 years a European nation being dismembered.
  Have no doubt about Vladimir Putin's ambitions, it is the restoration 
of the Russian Empire, and no one should have any illusions about that. 
Unless a stand is taken, day after day, week after week, Vladimir 
Putin, diverting attention from his economic troubles, will continue to 
commit aggression until he feels he has restored the old Russian 
Empire.
  We are writing a shameful chapter in American history, the nation 
that used to stand up for people who were struggling for freedom and 
assist them. I remind my colleagues that the Ukrainians are not asking 
for a single American boot on the ground, they are just asking for 
weapons to defend themselves. Isn't that shameful.


                              Middle East

  Mr. President, I wish to speak about the Middle East. First, let me 
remind you of a couple of comments in recent months that the President 
of the United States has made, one concerning ISIS, which has now moved 
into Africa, Libya, and Tunisia--recent attacks. Of course, we know 
about their caliphate that they have set up in Iraq and Syria. Boko 
Haram has declared their allegiance. They are spreading like an 
epidemic.
  The President of the United States said, speaking of ISIS: ``The 
analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a 
jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn't make them Kobe 
Bryant.''
  I say to my colleagues, I am not making that up. That is what the 
President of the United States said about ISIS.
  Then, he said recently:

       Over the last several years, we have consistently taken the 
     fight to terrorists who threaten our country. We have 
     targeted al Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen--

  In Yemen--

     and recently eliminated the top commander of its affiliate in 
     Somalia.

  This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while 
supporting partners on the front lines, is one we have successfully 
pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years.
  Is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for 
years.
  Again, I tell my colleagues, I am not making this up.
  Then, of course, Iran. The White House has repeatedly slammed the 
Israeli Prime Minister for comments made during an election campaign, 
statements he has clarified or apologized for.
  But the White House continues to threaten a reassessment of American 
policy toward Israel because ``words matter.'' That is what the White 
House spokesman said--``words matter.''
  But when Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei chanted ``Death to America'' in a 
recent address, the White House dismissed the remarks as aimed at a 
domestic, political audience.
  General Petraeus said on March 20: ``The Islamic State isn't our 
biggest problem in Iraq.''
  Our biggest problem in Iraq, according to General Petraeus, is Iran. 
He is right.
  ISIS is a terrible and awful disease that is afflicting the Middle 
East and may in Africa. But when you look at what the Iranians are 
doing, they are in Sanaa in Yemen, they are in Baghdad, they are in 
Beirut, and they are in Damascus.
  Today, as we speak, Mr. Soleimani, the head of the Iranian 
Revolutionary Guard, is leading the fight in Tikrit. This is the same 
head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard who sent thousands of copper-
tipped IEDs into Iraq while our troops were there fighting and killed 
hundreds--hundreds--of American soldiers and marines, while we watch 
them retake the city of Tikrit, and then we will get the credit with 
the Iraqi people.
  So David Petraeus, in answer to the question, ``You have had some 
interaction with Qasem Soleimani in the past. Could you tell us about 
those,'' Petraeus talks about those he met with:

       When I met with the senior Iraqi, he conveyed the message: 
     ``General Petraeus, you should be aware that I, Qasem 
     Soleimani, control Iran's policy for Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, 
     Gaza, and Afghanistan.''

  That is what Soleimani claimed. It was probably not true at the time, 
but there is very little doubt that Soleimani and the Iranians are on 
the move. Our Arab friends, whether they be the Saudis, the UAE or many 
others, are keenly aware of this movement and success of the Iranians.
  Very frankly, they do not understand this Faustian bargain that is 
now being attempted to be concluded by this administration and the 
Iranians in the form of a nuclear agreement, somehow thinking that if 
there is this nuclear agreement--and I am not on the floor today to 
talk about it--that somehow there will be a whole new relationship with 
Iran, the same people who recently said: ``Death to Israel.''
  So you can understand why our friends in the Middle East and the 
Sunni-Arab countries are finding their own way, developing their own 
strategy, and have no confidence in the United States of America.


                                 Israel

  Lately, there has been a lot of pressure on Israel as a result of the 
only free and fair election that you will see take place in that entire 
part of the world. There has been a harsh criticism of the things Prime 
Minister Netanyahu said during that campaign.
  I point out to my colleagues sometimes things are said in campaigns 
that maybe we say in the heat of the campaign and maybe it is OK if we 
apologize.
  Today, one of the most astute observers, in my view, Bret Stephens of 
the Wall Street Journal, had some advice for the Israelis. From his 
article in this morning's Wall Street Journal entitled ``The Orwellian 
Obama Presidency'':

       Here is my advice to the Israeli government, along with 
     every other country being

[[Page S1760]]

     treated disdainfully by this crass administration: Repay 
     contempt with contempt. Mr. Obama plays to classic bully 
     type. He is abusive and surly only toward those he feels are 
     either too weak, or too polite, to hit back. The Saudis 
     figured that out in 2013, after Mr. Obama failed to honor 
     his promises on Syria; they turned down a seat on the 
     security council, spoke openly about acquiring nuclear 
     weapons from Pakistan, and tanked the price of oil, mainly 
     as a weapon against Iran. Now Mr. Obama is nothing if not 
     solicitous of the Saudi Highnesses.
       The Israelis will need to chart their own path of 
     resistance. On the Iranian nuclear deal, they may have to go 
     rogue. Let's hope their warnings have not been mere bluffs. 
     Israel survived its first 19 years without meaningful U.S. 
     patronage. For now, all it has to do is get through the next 
     22, admittedly long, months.

  I note the presence of my colleague from South Carolina, and I guess 
my question to him is: How in the world do we justify this delusionary 
idea that somehow an agreement with Iran on nuclear weapons--and I am 
not asking to go into the details of it now, because my colleague and I 
are in agreement that it is an agreement, as Henry Kissinger described, 
that was once designed to eliminate nuclear weapons and is now designed 
to delay Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons--how do we translate 
that into believing that people who chant ``Death to America'' are 
going to be our friends, particularly in light of their aggression 
throughout the region and their successful movement in these parts of 
the world?
  Mr. GRAHAM. If I could give my best answer to that, No. 1--and my 
colleague from Arizona has been more right than wrong for the last 4 
years about what was going to happen in the Mideast if we made the 
choices the President made--No. 1, my colleague said if we don't leave 
any troops behind in Iraq, all our gains will come unraveled. At the 
end of the day, the sectarian rise in violence was a direct result of, 
I think, American troops leaving Iraq. We had a good thing going after 
the surge. It did work. After drawing the redline against Assad and 
doing nothing about it, ISIL was able to fill in that vacuum.
  But here is the question: Given Iran's behavior today, what would 
they do with the extra money that would come into their coffers if 
sanctions were lifted? Let's say we got a nuclear deal tomorrow, and as 
a result of that deal sanctions would be lifted. Without a nuclear 
program, the Ayatollahs are wreaking havoc throughout the region. The 
pro-American government in Yemen has been taken down by Houthi militias 
funded by Iran. Assad in Syria has killed 220,000 of his own people and 
he is a puppet of Iran. John Kerry said that Assad was Iran's puppet. 
We have Lebanon, where Hezbollah is an agent of Iran that saved Assad 
and creating discontent all over the region. We have Shia militias on 
the ground in Iraq being led by the leader of the Revolutionary Guard 
in Iran.
  So here is the answer to my colleague's question. How could anybody 
believe the money we would give them for sanction relief would go to 
hospitals and schools? Don't you think the best evidence of what they 
would do with money is what they are doing today? The administration 
has never tied behavior to sanctions relief. So my big fear, Senator 
McCain, is that not only would the Arabs want a nuclear weapon of their 
own if we got a bad deal with Iran, but the money we gave the Iranians 
would go into their missile program to hit us, would go into further 
destabilizing the Middle East.
  Does my colleague agree that given Iran's behavior there is not one 
ounce of moderation in this regime? Does my colleague agree there are 
no moderates in charge of Iran; that when President Obama speaks to the 
Iranian people, urging them to argue for this deal, they have no voice; 
that the last time the Iranian people rose up to petition their 
government they got gunned down? Does my colleague agree with me that 
President Obama has no idea what is going on inside Iran and no 
understanding what this regime is up to with the money they already 
have?
  Mr. McCAIN. I would respond to my friend, I wish the President of the 
United States, who issued some comment to the Iranian people about the 
necessity of a nuclear agreement, would have spoken up in 2009 when 
thousands and thousands of Iranians were on the streets in Tehran 
protesting a corrupt election and wanting freedom and he refused. They 
were chanting ``Obama, Obama, are you with us or are you with them?'' 
And he refused to speak out on their behalf. That is when he should 
have spoken up to the Iranian people.
  I would also ask my friend: Is there anyone in Iran who is free to 
speak up? You either get killed or put in prison if you speak up. So my 
question is: Who was the President of the United States speaking to 
with those remarks?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Well, all I can say is it would be like telling a North 
Korean to speak up. That may be a bit of an extreme example, but not 
too much.
  The point we are trying to make to President Obama is that if he 
believes there is a moderate element in Iran, who are they? Who is in 
charge of this government he is trying to empower at the expense of the 
hardliners?
  The assembly of experts are the people who pick the next Ayatollah. 
On March 10, they had an election--I think it was 46 to 24. Ayatollah 
Yazdi--I don't want to mispronounce his name--won the election to be in 
charge of the assembly of experts. Their No. 1 goal is to pick the next 
Ayatollah. He is widely known to be the hardest of the hardliners.
  So I want the administration to explain to us, the Congress, who the 
moderates are and how do you square that circle with the election of 
the most hardline Ayatollah to pick the next Ayatollah? What 
information does the President have that there is a moderate element 
that we can empower in Iran?
  Can my colleague name one moderate voice that has a real say in the 
Iranian Government?
  Mr. McCAIN. Not any who are alive or out of prison. I am sure there 
are many moderate voices in the Ayatollah's prisons throughout Iran by 
the tens of thousands.
  But I would also ask my colleague: Is it not true that every 
manifestation of Iranian behavior--whether it be in Baghdad, where they 
now have significant control; in Beirut, where Hezbollah basically has 
control of the country; in Damascus--Bashir Assad would not be alive 
today or in Syria today if it hadn't been for the Iranians flying in 
hundreds of tons of equipment, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and 
bringing Hezbollah out of Lebanon and into Syria. And now we see 
Soleimani, the leader liberating Tikrit, getting all the publicity. And 
the people of Iraq, naturally, are thanking him for freeing Tikrit from 
the forces of ISIS.
  One other comment. I know other colleagues are on the floor, but 
David Petraeus, probably the most brilliant military officer I have 
ever had the honor of knowing, made a very interesting comment in an 
interview the other day and I would like my colleague's comment on it. 
He said the major threat in the Middle East and in the world today is 
not ISIS. It is not ISIS. He said it was Iran.
  I think when we look at a map and we see where the Iranians are now 
in control, we have to give great credence to General Petraeus's 
assessment. Would my colleague agree?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Let me not only say why I agree, but here is what is 
about to happen in the Mideast. Because of our lack of leadership, the 
Iranians have gone on a rampage. My colleague had a very august group 
of people today--some of the smartest people in the Mideast and the 
country, leading think tank folks--come before the committee today, and 
I asked the question: Do you agree with me that Iran is wreaking havoc? 
Three out of four said yes. The one lady said seriously destabilizing.
  Whatever adjective you want to use, it is commonly viewed that the 
Iranian regime is projecting power in the most disruptive manner in 
recent memory. They are backing people who took down the pro-Yemen 
Government, and now we have lost the ability to follow Al Qaeda in the 
Arabian Peninsula that is responsible for the attack in Paris.
  Assad wouldn't last, as my colleague said, 5 minutes, and the Assad 
regime, which has killed 220,000 people and driven over a million 
people out of Syria, is putting pressure on Lebanon and Jordan.
  The Shia militia on the ground today are probably war criminals by 
any classic definition, and they are being led by Soleimani, the head 
of the Revolutionary Guard, the biggest exporter of terrorism in the 
world.
  Mr. McCAIN. And responsible for the deaths of hundreds and hundreds 
of

[[Page S1761]]

American marines and soldiers. What do we tell their mothers?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Exactly. So the point we are trying to make to the 
President and the Members of this body is that Iran is on a rampage 
without a nuclear weapon. Clearly they are not a moderate regime trying 
to live peacefully with their neighbors. They are trying to disrupt the 
whole Mideast and have influence unlike at any other time.
  Here is what is going to happen. The Arabs in the region are going to 
push back. They no longer trust us. Remember when the head of the Saudi 
Arabian intelligence community said it is better to be America's enemy 
than her friend? We heard this twice in the Mideast on our recent 
tour--that people believe Iran is getting a better deal from America 
being her enemy than the traditional friends of this country.
  So here is what is going to happen. Turkey is going to align with the 
Sunni Arab world and go after Iran themselves, and we are going to have 
a Sunni-Shia war the likes of which we haven't seen in 1,000 years, 
because without American leadership the whole place is falling apart.
  Here is the legacy of Barack Obama. He tried to change the Mideast by 
giving speeches. And every time he was told by military leaders you 
should do A, he did B. He has reached out to the Ayatollahs, not 
understanding who he is talking to. He has empowered the most brutal, 
vicious, murderers on the planet today in Iran.
  This Ayatollah in Iran is not a good man. He has blood on his hands.
  The President is talking to the people who killed our soldiers by the 
hundreds. He is giving them resources they wouldn't have otherwise, and 
he is making a deal with the devil. At the end of the day, this is 
blowing up in our face.
  If the President doesn't self-correct, we are all in trouble. And if 
this Congress sits on the sidelines and allows this nuclear deal with 
Iran to go unchecked, and we don't look at it and vote on it, then we 
own the consequences of it.
  To every Member of this body I say: We have an independent duty, as 
does the President of the United States, to make sure the deal we do 
with Iran is a good deal for America and not a nightmare for the world. 
So we are asking our colleagues to take their independent duty 
seriously. We have a check-and-balance responsibility. Do not let this 
administration do a deal with the Ayatollahs in Iran who go to the 
United Nations and bypass us. If it is a good deal, we will vote for 
it.
  As strongly as I know how to say it, I am telling my colleagues that 
our policies in the Mideast are failing, Iran is the biggest winner of 
America leading from behind, all our traditional allies are in a world 
of hurt, and they are going to take matters in their own hands.
  I thank Senator McCain for his leadership and for telling America 
about the right choices, even though they are the hard choices. I will 
continue to work with my colleague as long as I can to speak truth to 
what I think is the biggest foreign policy disaster in my lifetime 
unfolding before our very eyes.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the 
Wall Street Journal article entitled ``The Orwellian Obama 
Presidency,'' by Bret Stephens.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, March 23, 2015]

                     The Orwellian Obama Presidency

                           (By Bret Stephens)

       Under Mr. Obama, friends are enemies, denial is wisdom, 
     capitulation is victory.
       The humiliating denouement to America's involvement in 
     Yemen came over the weekend, when U.S. Special Forces were 
     forced to evacuate a base from which they had operated 
     against the local branch of al Qaeda. This is the same branch 
     that claimed responsibility for the January attack on Charlie 
     Hebdo and has long been considered to pose the most direct 
     threat to Europe and the United States.
       So who should Barack Obama be declaring war on in the 
     Middle East other than the state of Israel?
       There is an upside-down quality to this president's world 
     view. His administration is now on better terms with Iran--
     whose Houthi proxies, with the slogan ``God is great, death 
     to America, death to Israel, damn the Jews, power to Islam,'' 
     just deposed Yemen's legitimate president--than it is with 
     Israel. He claims we are winning the war against Islamic 
     State even as the group continues to extend its reach into 
     Libya, Yemen and Nigeria.
       He treats Republicans in the Senate as an enemy when it 
     comes to the Iranian nuclear negotiations, while treating the 
     Russian foreign ministry as a diplomatic partner. He favors 
     the moral legitimacy of the United Nations Security Council 
     to that of the U.S. Congress. He is facilitating Bashar 
     Assad's war on his own people by targeting ISIS so the Syrian 
     dictator can train his fire on our ostensible allies in the 
     Free Syrian Army.
       He was prepared to embrace a Muslim Brother as president of 
     Egypt but maintains an arm's-length relationship with his 
     popular pro-American successor. He has no problem keeping 
     company with Al Sharpton and tagging an American police 
     department as comprehensively racist but is nothing if not 
     adamant that the words ``Islamic'' and ``terrorism'' must on 
     no account ever be conjoined. The deeper that Russian forces 
     advance into Ukraine, the more they violate cease-fires, the 
     weaker the Kiev government becomes, the more insistent he is 
     that his response to Russia is working.
       To adapt George Orwell's motto for Oceania: Under Mr. 
     Obama, friends are enemies, denial is wisdom, capitulation is 
     victory.
       The current victim of Mr. Obama's moral inversions is the 
     recently re-elected Israeli prime minister. Normally a 
     sweeping democratic mandate reflects legitimacy, but not for 
     Mr. Obama. Now we are treated to the astonishing spectacle in 
     which Benjamin Netanyahu has become persona non grata for his 
     comments doubting the current feasibility of a two-state 
     solution. This, while his Palestinian counterpart Mahmoud 
     Abbas is in the 11th year of his four-year term, without a 
     murmur of protest from the White House.
       It is true that Mr. Netanyahu made an ugly election-day 
     remark about Israeli-Arab voters ``coming out in droves to 
     the polls,'' thereby putting ``the right-wing government in 
     danger.'' For this he has apologized, in person, to leaders 
     of the Israeli-Arab community.
       That's more than can be said for Mr. Abbas, who last year 
     threatened Israel with a global religious war if Jews were 
     allowed to pray in the Temple Mount's Al Aqsa mosque. ``We 
     will not allow our holy places to be contaminated,'' the 
     Palestinian Authority president said. The Obama 
     administration insists that Mr. Abbas is ``the best 
     interlocutor Israel is ever going to have.''
       Maybe that's true, but if so it only underscores the point 
     Mr. Netanyahu was making in the first place--and for which 
     Mr. Obama now threatens a fundamental reassessment of U.S. 
     relations with Israel. In 2014 Mr. Abbas agreed to a power-
     sharing agreement with Hamas, a deal breaker for any Israeli 
     interested in peace. In 2010 he used the expiration of a 10-
     month Israeli settlement freeze as an excuse to abandon 
     bilateral peace efforts. In 2008 he walked away from a 
     statehood offer from then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. 
     In 2000 he was with Yasser Arafat at Camp David when the 
     Palestinians turned down a deal from Israel's Ehud Barak.
       And so on. For continuously rejecting good-faith Israeli 
     offers, Mr. Abbas may be about to get his wish: a U.S. vote 
     for Palestinian statehood at the United Nations. For tiring 
     of constant Palestinian bad faith--and noting the fact--
     Israel will now be treated to pariah-nation status by Mr. 
     Obama.
       Here is my advice to the Israeli government, along with 
     every other country being treated disdainfully by this crass 
     administration: Repay contempt with contempt. Mr. Obama plays 
     to classic bully type. He is abusive and surly only toward 
     those he feels are either too weak, or too polite, to hit 
     back.
       The Saudis figured that out in 2013, after Mr. Obama failed 
     to honor his promises on Syria; they turned down a seat on 
     the Security Council, spoke openly about acquiring nuclear 
     weapons from Pakistan and tanked the price of oil, mainly as 
     a weapon against Iran. Now Mr. Obama is nothing if not 
     solicitous of the Saudi highnesses.
       The Israelis will need to chart their own path of 
     resistance. On the Iranian nuclear deal, they may have to go 
     rogue: Let's hope their warnings have not been mere bluffs. 
     Israel survived its first 19 years without meaningful U.S. 
     patronage. For now, all it has to do is get through the next 
     22, admittedly long, months.

  Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleagues for their patience.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, before the Senators from Arizona and South 
Carolina leave the floor, I want to say a couple of words about their 
contribution to our collective efforts on the budget.
  As I said a moment ago, the No. 1 priority for the Federal Government 
is national security. And while we are all concerned about runaway 
spending--and the chairman of the Committee on the Budget has been 
quite determined to rein that in by producing a balanced budget over 
the next 10 years--it is due to the leadership of the Senator from 
Arizona and the Senator from South Carolina, along with our other 
colleagues on the Committee on the Budget, who also happen to serve on 
the

[[Page S1762]]

Committee on Armed Services, who I think have led us to a much better 
place--a place where we can all feel better that we are closer to 
making sure our military has the resources they need in order to meet 
the commitments we have asked them to make.
  We maybe have a few things we need to still talk about, and we will 
keep talking until we get it right, but the fact is, without the 
leadership of the Senators from Arizona and South Carolina and others 
on the Committee on the Budget, we wouldn't be where we are today and 
able to hold our heads up high and say we believe in our duty to our 
men and women in uniform, we believe in America's leadership role in 
the world, and we will not shrink from that.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. CORNYN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 471

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed on 
behalf of Senator Wyden, Ranking Member Sanders, and myself to set 
aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 471.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Whitehouse], for Mr. 
     Wyden, for himself, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Whitehouse, Ms. 
     Stabenow, and Mr. Brown, proposes an amendment numbered 471.

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. 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 cut 
   benefits, raise the retirement age, or privatize Social Security)

       At the end of subtitle A of title IV, add the following:

     SEC. __. POINT OF ORDER TO PROTECT SOCIAL SECURITY.

       (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--
       (1) result in a reduction of benefits scheduled under title 
     II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.);
       (2) increase either the early or full retirement age for 
     benefits described in paragraph (1); or
       (3) privatize Social Security.
       (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).

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, for my colleagues, this is an 
amendment which relates to protecting Social Security.
  Social Security is a program that has been an enormous success, that 
is at the heart of the American middle class, and that represents a 
solemn promise our seniors have earned over a lifetime of work. It 
makes a real difference in real people's lives. It is the difference 
between comfort and poverty for over 20 million Americans.
  Rhode Island is a State where we count on Social Security. We value 
Social Security. We know how important it is. What I have heard 
firsthand from Rhode Island seniors over and over again is they want to 
make sure this program is solid and remains strong, not just for them 
but for their children and their grandchildren.
  Sadly, for decades, the history of the Republican Party has been one 
of repeated attempts to undermine this bedrock of middle-class 
retirement security, proposing over and over again various types of 
security cuts and, believe it or not, even turning Social Security's 
assets over to Wall Street to manage.
  This Democratic amendment establishes a point of order against any 
legislation that would reduce Social Security benefits, that would 
increase the Social Security retirement age, or that would privatize 
the program. This would help our moderate friends protect Social 
Security from rightwing attacks, and it would ensure that seniors, as a 
part of their American experience, can continue to count on benefits 
they have earned.
  Social Security is at present projected to remain fully solvent 
through 2033. It does not drive our current budget deficits and should 
not be sacrificed to the quarrels over the budget. Ultimately, I think 
we will need to strengthen Social Security, and when we do, simply 
asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share into the system 
can make that difference. Simply asking the wealthiest Americans to pay 
their fair share into the system can extend it another 50 years, while 
also making our tax system fairer to the middle class. So it is a true 
win-win. And we want to make sure we do not have to watch Rhode Island 
seniors and seniors across the country pay the price for a deficit they 
had no part in creating.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island not 
only for his important remarks but for the work he has been doing for 
years to protect and defend Social Security.
  Let's be clear about a number of facts. When people jump up and say 
Social Security is going broke--not quite true. As Senator Whitehouse 
indicated, Social Security can pay out every benefit owed to every 
eligible American for the next 18 years.
  When people jump up and say Social Security is contributing to the 
deficit--also not quite accurate. As everybody knows, Social Security 
is funded by the payroll tax, an independent source of revenue for 
Social Security.
  The fact is that for many, many years, in a variety of ways, my 
Republican colleagues have been attempting to either cut Social 
Security or, in the extreme case, privatize Social Security and allow--
force--Americans to go to Wall Street for their retirement benefits.
  While this budget does not include a provision to cut Social 
Security, what I will say is, if my memory is correct, in three out of 
the four hearings held by the Budget Committee, there were Republican 
representatives--people who were asked to testify--who did talk about 
various ways to cut Social Security.
  So what this amendment does is it establishes a deficit-neutral 
reserve fund--it establishes a budget point of order which prevents 
benefit cuts, a raise in the retirement age, or the privatization of 
Social Security benefits. That is what it does.
  Now we are going to have a lot of people coming up here and saying: 
Well, we want to preserve Social Security.
  What they really mean is that in order to preserve Social Security, 
they want to cut Social Security benefits--maybe not for the people on 
Social Security today but for future beneficiaries.
  They say: Well, that is the only way we can protect Social Security.
  Well, that is not accurate. I introduced legislation which, in fact, 
makes Social Security not only solvent until the year 2065--50 years 
from today--but also expands benefits. We do that by saying that it is 
currently very absurd that a multimillionaire is paying the same amount 
of money into the Social Security trust fund as somebody making 
$118,000. There are some very wealthy people who are paying all of 
their Social Security taxes in the first day or two of the year.
  Right now, we have a situation where millions of people in this 
country depend upon Social Security, people who are getting benefits of 
$12,000, $13,000, $14,000 a year. That is how they are living. Those 
benefits should not be cut.
  When we talk about a so-called chained CPI, which cuts COLAs for 
seniors and disabled vets, what we are talking about is cutting Social 
Security benefits for an average 65-year-old by more than $658 a year 
by the time that person reaches age 75 and a cut of more than $1,100 a 
year by the time that person reaches age 85. Those are very significant 
cuts for people who are

[[Page S1763]]

trying to live on $13,000 or $14,000 a year.
  So here is the argument. Is Social Security important? Obviously, it 
is. As the middle class continues to decline, Social Security is 
enormously important for the elderly and the disabled people of this 
country.
  Point No. 2: Do we have to cut benefits in order to save Social 
Security? The answer is, obviously, yes. But we are back to the same 
old question we debate all day here. Our Republican friends seem 
absolutely determined not to ask the wealthiest people in this country 
who are doing phenomenally well to contribute to the well-being of the 
American people. That is this overall budget. But on the issue of 
Social Security, what we have to do is raise the cap, which is now at 
$118,000, and start it at $250,000. Just doing that will enable us to 
expand Social Security to the year 2065 and expand benefits for lower 
income seniors.

  This point of order is enormously important. It says there will be a 
need for 60 votes for any effort to cut Social Security, to raise the 
retirement--I don't know what world some people are living in. There 
are some who have come forward and said we should raise the Social 
Security retirement age to 70. Let's have people out there working at 
68, 69, 70 years of age. Let's force them to keep working before they 
get their benefits. My God, that is a horrendous idea. They also say we 
should cut COLAs--cost-of-living adjustments--for disabled vets. What a 
terrible idea.
  There is a way to extend Social Security for many decades and to 
expand benefits. This amendment says: Do not cut Social Security.
  I think a number of my Republican friends will say: Well, we are not 
going to cut Social Security for anybody on Social Security today. That 
is not good enough. There are people out there who are 50, 55, 60, 63, 
64, and they want to know that the benefits they will get are the 
benefits they will be able to live on. Don't cut benefits for working 
people, and that is what this very important amendment is about.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 
4:40 p.m. today be equally divided between the managers or their 
designees and that at 4:40 p.m., the Senate vote in relation to the 
following amendments in the order listed, with no second-degree 
amendments in order prior to the votes: Sanders amendment No. 474, a 
side-by-side to the Ayotte amendment; Ayotte amendment No. 400 on vets; 
Fischer amendment No. 409, a side-by-side to the Mikulski amendment; 
Mikulski amendment No. 362 on equal pay; a Hatch amendment, the text of 
which is at the desk; Wyden amendment No. 471 on Social Security; and 
Cornyn amendment No. 357, the President's budget.
  I further ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes of debate 
equally divided between the managers or their designees prior to each 
vote, and that all votes after the first in this series be 10 minutes 
in length.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, there 
will be up to four rollcall votes at 4:40 p.m.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                           Amendment No. 471

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont. I 
wish to add my support to our ranking member's remarks.
  At present, somebody making $110 million a year--and there are people 
who make $110 million a year in this country--will make the same 
contribution or less to Social Security as somebody making $110,000 a 
year in salary. At best, they will pay the same despite the fact that 
they are making 1,000 times more. At worst, they will pay even less 
into it because they have treated their income as capital gains and 
they have dodged the payroll tax on it. To me, that makes no sense, 
particularly when more and more of our national income is moving up 
into the top 1 percent, the top 2 percent, the top one-tenth of 1 
percent.
  In fact, there has been a pronounced effect on Social Security's 
balances just from the increased income inequality. More and more of 
the income generated in the United States of America is moving to the 
wealthiest people, and that means the amount of income under $110,000 
that is subject to taxation for Social Security is a smaller fraction 
of the total income package than it was before, which means there will 
be less income to support Social Security, and that is a significant 
part of why Social Security is underfunded and why it may only last for 
the next 18 years instead of longer.
  First of all, I think Social Security is so important that even if 
there were not this fairness discrepancy, it is worth it to our country 
to have people know that they and their aunts and their uncles and 
their grandparents have the security of Social Security, and we should 
protect it at virtually all costs.
  But even if that alone were not sufficient, the fact that everybody 
making under $110,000 supports Social Security and the billionaires 
make no greater contribution and perhaps less of a contribution than 
regular working folks is completely backward and completely wrong, but, 
unfortunately, that is the principle of primacy in this Republican 
budget. The principle of primacy in this Republican budget is that 
every tax loophole is sacred. Every tax loophole is nonnegotiable. 
Every tax loophole is to be defended at all costs. It doesn't matter 
what you have to cut, it doesn't matter what harm you have to do to 
Social Security or to other programs, nothing matters as much to this 
Republican budget as protecting every tax loophole.
  When we consider who has the clout around here in this country to get 
tax loopholes, guess what--it is the corporations and it is the 
wealthy. Those are the guys who really do the mischief.
  There are other tax protections for the middle class, and nobody 
wants to change those. But these tax loopholes that move jobs overseas 
and pay for that and allow companies to pretend their intellectual 
property is in another country when they only have half-a-dozen 
employees there and they are running big time across our country 
because they locate themselves for tax purposes in a tax haven--there 
is no benefit to that. We should fix that. But in this budget, all of 
that is kept sacred. It is the highest primary principle of this budget 
to defend every corporate tax loophole and every loophole that helps 
millionaires and billionaires, and I happen to think that is wrong.
  We brought this up over and over again in the hearings in the Budget 
Committee. We have heard from experts--not only experts brought in by 
the Democrats, we even heard from experts brought in by the Republicans 
who said that revenue has to be part of the solution to our deficit and 
that many of these tax loopholes are--there is no justification for 
them. Even with this testimony and that support in the record, this 
budget still stands by its principle of Republican primacy, and that is 
that every tax loophole is sacred.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. How much time remains on the Democratic side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 6\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this is a very important amendment, and I 
hope the American people are listening.
  Social Security is probably the most important Federal program ever 
developed in the modern history of this country. It is an enormously 
popular program, and it has been an enormously effective program. The 
truth is that it has significantly reduced poverty among seniors. 
Before Social Security, about 50 percent of seniors lived in poverty. 
Today, while the number is too high, it is somewhere around 10 percent.
  The extraordinary beauty of Social Security is that in good times and 
in bad times--in an economic boom, depression, or recession--Social 
Security has paid out every check owed to every eligible American 
without fail. No one has ever received a letter that said: You know, we 
are in the middle of a recession, so we have to cut your benefits in 
half. That has never been the case. We take it for granted, but that is 
an extraordinary record.
  Because we have a number of Republicans who simply do not like 
government programs, there has been for

[[Page S1764]]

many years an effort to either cut or privatize Social Security and 
give it over to Wall Street. What we hear are a lot of misleading 
arguments. The argument is, well, Social Security is unsustainable, and 
it is not going to be there. And they throw out all of these reasons. 
But the answer is that Social Security is absolutely sustainable, but, 
as Senator Whitehouse just indicated, we have to deal with issues such 
as income and wealth inequality, which has resulted in a significant 
reduction in the solvency of Social Security because people's incomes 
have not risen, and therefore they contribute less to the Social 
Security trust fund, or many other people have gone way above the cap 
and are still paying less than they should.
  The Republicans' solution seems to be--and I think there will be a 
side-by-side amendment that will say: Well, we are not going to cut 
Social Security benefits for those who are in the program right now. 
But essentially their language says that they will cut benefits for 
future retirees, people who are 55, 60, and 63 years of age. When we 
have so many seniors and elderly people who are struggling right now to 
make ends meet, I think the last thing in the world we should do is cut 
Social Security.
  Over half of all Americans have less than $10,000 in savings, and 
these people, when they reach Social Security age, do not want to see 
their benefits cut. Two-thirds of seniors depend on Social Security for 
more than half of their income, and one-third depend on Social Security 
for almost all of their income. These people do not want to see their 
benefits cut.
  Just 2 weeks ago, Senator Whitehouse and I accepted petitions from 2 
million people which said loudly and clearly: Do not cut Social 
Security. And in the polling I have seen in these tough economic times, 
Republicans say do not cut Social Security, Democrats say do not cut 
Social Security, and Independents say do not cut Social Security. Yet 
what our Republican friends are saying is that if you are 55, 60, or 63 
and are not yet on Social Security, beware because we are prepared to 
cut your Social Security. Maybe we will raise the retirement age or 
maybe we will cut your COLAs through a so-called chained CPI.
  I will say as the former chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs 
Committee that virtually every veterans organization has been loud and 
clear in opposition to the chained CPI because they understand that 
chained CPI does not just cut benefits for seniors, it cuts benefits 
for disabled veterans. Do we really want to be cutting benefits for 
disabled veterans? I hope we will not.
  This is a very important amendment. It is an amendment that says: If 
you stand with the overwhelming majority of the American people who say 
we should not cut Social Security--yes, let's move forward to make it 
solvent beyond the 18 years that it is solvent, but do not cut 
benefits, do not cut COLAs, and do not raise the retirement age.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New 
Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                           Amendment No. 400

  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 400.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Ms. Ayotte] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 400.

  Ms. AYOTTE. 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 maintain and 
enhance access, choice, and accountability in veterans care through the 
Veterans Choice Card program under section 101 of the Veterans Access, 
                Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO MAINTAIN AND 
                   ENHANCE ACCESS, CHOICE, AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN 
                   VETERANS CARE THROUGH THE VETERANS CHOICE CARD 
                   PROGRAM.

       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 maintaining and enhancing access, choice, and 
     accountability in veterans care through the Veterans Choice 
     Card program, 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 2016 through 2020 or the period of the total of 
     fiscal years 2016 through 2025.

  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, last year in this body, we heard and saw 
evidence about what was happening at some of our VA facilities--the 
manipulated wait lists, the delays our veterans had to endure--and, 
unfortunately, some of our veterans died waiting for care.
  We passed a bipartisan bill, one on which we all worked together, and 
I appreciate that Senator Sanders worked very hard on that bill. The 
Veterans Choice Program was part of that bipartisan bill, but this 
program has yet to be implemented in the way this body intended. The 
goal was to expedite care for veterans who had been waiting longer than 
30 days or who live farther than 40 miles away from the VA hospital. In 
my home State of New Hampshire, we don't have a full-service veterans 
hospital, so too often our veterans are driving long distances--to 
Massachusetts or to other locations--to get the care they earned for 
having served and sacrificed so much for our country.
  Recently, a study conducted by the VFW found that 92 percent of 
program-eligible veterans were interested in non-VA or private care 
options that they could go to. Yet that same survey found that 80 
percent of eligible veterans were unable to access the Veterans Choice 
Program.
  Barely 2 months after the program started--and we worked on it on a 
bipartisan basis in this Congress--the administration announced plans 
to divert money from this important program by saying it was 
underutilized. Let's be clear. It is underutilized because the VA is 
not implementing it properly. Veterans are not being told their rights, 
and we owe it to them to get this Veterans Choice Program right and 
give veterans the choice they want for private care options so they are 
not driving or waiting in line, given what they have done for our 
country.
  Our veterans chose to fight on our behalf. We should honor the work 
we did together and ensure that this program is properly implemented by 
the VA, which is not happening right now. Our veterans want this 
choice. Let's get this veterans program right.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, which, again, is an 
amendment designed to support what we intended in this body--to ensure 
that veterans don't have to wait in line, that they can exercise 
private care options when they want to, thereby giving them the choice 
for the sacrifices they have made for this country. They deserve 
nothing less.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                           Amendment No. 481

  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 481.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Cotton] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 481.

  Mr. COTTON. 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 fund relating to supporting 
                                Israel)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO SUPPORTING 
                   ISRAEL.

       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 S1765]]

     resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions, 
     amendments, amendments between the Houses, motions, or 
     conference reports relating to United States policy toward 
     Israel, which may include preventing the United Nations and 
     other international institutions from taking unfair or 
     discriminatory action against Israel, 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 2016 through 2020 or the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.

  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, since its founding in 1948, Israel has 
been a strong and steadfast ally to the United States in the Middle 
East, a region characterized by instability and violence.
  The U.S.-Israel relationship is built on mutual respect for common 
values, including a commitment to democracy, the rule of law, 
individual liberty, and ethnic and religious diversity.
  Last week, President Obama and other administration officials 
suggested a fundamental rethinking of this alliance, citing Prime 
Minister Netanyahu's simple restatement of fact that there can be no 
Palestinian State until conditions change. The Palestinian Authority 
must, at a minimum, eject Hamas from its governing coalition, reclaim 
control of the Gaza Strip, accept a demilitarized eastern border, and 
recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State.
  Further, Prime Minister Netanyahu recently reiterated these points 
and his support for a two-state solution in principle. In this light, 
any suggestion that the United States may reconsider our support for 
Israel--especially our support at the United Nations--is wrongheaded 
and shortsighted, because the United Nations, regrettably, has 
consistently employed a double standard in its treatment of Israel, 
making false allegations against Israel while, even worse, ignoring 
even worse behavior by other countries.

  The U.N. has often questioned Israel's legitimacy----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. COTTON. I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds to conclude.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COTTON. The U.N. Human Rights Council has focused obsessively on 
Israel. The U.N. General Assembly has adopted 21 resolutions singling 
out Israel.
  Because of this regrettable history, my amendment lays the groundwork 
for a restriction of funding to the United Nations should it take 
unfair and discriminatory action against Israel or attempt to impose a 
final settlement on Israel and the P.A.
  My hope is this will not be necessary, but this Congress should be 
prepared to take actions to defend the U.S.-Israel alliance.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                           Amendment No. 498

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and call up the Hatch amendment No. 498.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Enzi], for Mr. Hatch, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 498.

  Mr. ENZI. 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 relating to 
  legislation submitted to Congress by President Obama to protect and 
                      strengthen Social Security)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO 
                   LEGISLATION SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS BY THE 
                   PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO PROTECT AND 
                   STRENGTHEN SOCIAL 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, 
     amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports 
     relating to legislation submitted to Congress by the 
     President of the United States to protect current 
     beneficiaries of the Social Security program and prevent the 
     insolvency of the program, by the amounts provided in such 
     legislation for such purpose, provided that such legislation 
     would not increase the deficit over either the period of the 
     total of fiscal years 2016 through 2020 or the period of the 
     total of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Vermont.


                           Amendment No. 474

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment to call up my amendment No. 474.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 474.

  Mr. SANDERS. 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 and 
 strengthen the Department of Veterans Affairs, hire more health care 
professionals for the Department, and ensure quality and timely access 
                    to health care for all veterans)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO PROTECT AND 
                   STRENGTHEN THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 
                   HIRE MORE HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS FOR THE 
                   DEPARTMENT, AND ENSURE QUALITY AND TIMELY 
                   ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE FOR ALL 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, 
     amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports 
     relating to funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
     which may include legislation that strengthens quality and 
     timely access to health care by hiring more health care 
     professionals at facilities of the Department and making 
     necessary improvements to infrastructure of 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 2016 through 2020 or the period of the total of fiscal 
     years 2016 through 2025.

  Mr. SANDERS. This side-by-side is a simple and noncontroversial 
amendment. It creates a deficit-neutral reserve fund so the VA can have 
the health care professionals--the doctors and nurses--it needs to make 
sure the VA is providing quality care to all of our veterans in a 
timely manner. That is about it.
  From what I heard--I will speak with Senator Ayotte a little bit 
later--her amendment is simply making sure the VA implements the law we 
passed. I don't have any objection to that and I don't know that anyone 
should.
  Our amendment simply says we want the VA to have the medical 
personnel--doctors, nurses, and staff--it needs to provide quality and 
timely health care to our veterans. I hope it will receive unanimous 
agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. SANDERS. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ayotte). Under the previous order, there 
will now be 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in 
relation to amendment No. 474, offered by the Senator from Vermont.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, this is a pretty simple and 
straightforward amendment. Senator Ayotte mentioned a moment ago we 
have had problems at the VA. No question about it; veterans have waited 
too long to get the timely and quality care they need. What this 
amendment does is establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to protect 
and strengthen the Department of Veterans Affairs, to hire more health 
care professionals for the Department, and ensure quality and timely 
access to health care for all veterans.
  If we talk to veterans organizations, they think the care within the 
VA is good once people get in there. I want to make sure we have the 
doctors and nurses to provide the quality and timely care our veterans 
deserve.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I don't think we have a problem with this 
amendment. Again, I ask the Senator if he would be willing to voice-
vote it.
  Mr. SANDERS. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the 
amendment, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 474.

[[Page S1766]]

  The amendment (No. 474) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 400

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 400.
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Does the Chair wish to change places at this time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. Thank you.
  (Mr. ENZI assumed the Chair.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I urge a ``yes'' vote on amendment No. 
400.
  Unfortunately, the bipartisan work we have done on the Veterans 
Choice Card has not been properly implemented by the VA. Our veterans 
want this choice of private care. The Senator from Vermont has worked 
very hard on this issue, which enjoys bipartisan support.
  I urge my colleagues to make sure we get this right for our veterans. 
That is what my amendment does.
  Mr. SANDERS. Would the Senator agree to a voice vote?
  Ms. AYOTTE. I would.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleague from New 
Hampshire for her work on this amendment with my office. We have 
successfully completed language that I think moves us forward in the 
right direction.
  I also wish to thank my colleague Senator Sanders for his tireless 
efforts on behalf of veterans, indicated most recently by this 
amendment, which is fully compatible with the Ayotte amendment.
  I urge support for this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any further debate?
  All time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 400) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 409

  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. 409, offered by the Senator from Nebraska, Mrs. Fischer.
  The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, this amendment I think satisfies the 
desire for all of us to reassert and reaffirm our support for equal pay 
for equal work.
  Senator Mikulski spoke earlier about an amendment that I questioned 
because it ends merit pay, which I think hurts workplace flexibility 
and truly limits career opportunities for women.
  My amendment again reaffirms that support, equal pay for equal work. 
But it also affirms the course of free speech, because free speech 
includes the right to discuss wage information with fellow coworkers, 
and that reflects the President's action that he took in 2014 to 
prevent retaliation from employers against employees who discuss wages 
with other employees or seek such information from their employers.
  This is an amendment I believe all of us can support. It again 
reaffirms equal pay for equal work and the nonretaliation clause.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ayotte). The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I appreciate Senator Fischer offering 
her side-by-side on equal pay. I am glad to see that this is, in fact, 
a stronger amendment than what my Republican colleagues have offered in 
the past. However, this amendment still does not go far enough.
  In my view, Senator Mikulski's amendment is a far better alternative. 
It is not enough to ban retaliation about discussing salary 
information. This amendment would not allow women to act on any 
information they discovered. It would not give women their day in court 
and the opportunity to get money owed to them after sometimes months--
sometimes years--of discrimination.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Nebraska, Mrs. Fischer.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam 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.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mr. Cruz).
  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. 81 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     King
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--43

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Cruz
       
  The amendment (No. 409) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 362

  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. 362, offered by the Senator from Maryland, Ms. Mikulski.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise to urge the Senate to agree to 
the Mikulski amendment on paycheck fairness. This finishes the job we 
started with Lilly Ledbetter. What it does is not wishful thinking, but 
the real deal, where employers would be prohibited from retaliation for 
sharing pay information. Punitive damages would be allowed. So it would 
be a real deterrent for discriminating on pay. It stops employers from 
using any reason to pay women less, where they fabricate: ``Oh, he is 
the head of the household,'' or whatever.
  I also then remind my colleagues that in addition to what it does, I 
will tell you what it does not do. This bill would not require an 
employer to cut the salaries of male employees. This bill would not 
have any criminal penalties in it for refusing to disclose wage 
information. This bill does not require the government to set salaries 
for Federal employees or anybody.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the 
Mikulski amendment. The specificity of it makes it corrosive to the 
privilege of the budget. The budget resolution is focused on expanding 
economic growth, and that growth comes from new jobs--over 1 million 
jobs, according to the CBO, if our budget takes full effect.
  As the economy grows, putting more people to work is our best 
strategy to increase pay for women and men. We all want women and men 
to earn equivalent pay for the same job at the same firm. That is why 
Congress enacted the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which prohibits 
discrimination in pay on the basis of gender for substantially similar 
work. Congress also passed Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act to prohibit 
businesses from discriminating on the basis of sex. These laws empower 
women to demand equal pay, and they have. The gap has been narrowing.

  I ask Senators to vote no on this amendment because of its 
specificity. It is corrosive to the privilege of the budget.

[[Page S1767]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. ENZI. 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 senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mr. Cruz).
  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. 82 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--54

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     King
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Cruz
       
  The amendment (No. 362) was rejected.


                           Amendment No. 498

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 498, 
offered by the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi, for Mr. Hatch.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, saving Social Security will require 
Congress to work in a bipartisan fashion, but most of all it will 
require Presidential leadership.
  In 2009, President Obama held a fiscal responsibility summit to talk 
about the need for entitlement reform. During the summit the President 
said:

       What we have done is kicked this can down the road. We are 
     now at the end of the road and are not in a position to kick 
     it any further. We have to signal seriousness in this by 
     making sure some of the hard decisions are made under my 
     watch, not someone else's.

  I agree with what the President said then, even if he hasn't exactly 
followed his own advice. It is time to roll up our sleeves and get to 
work.
  Every year we delay makes it more difficult to implement gradual 
reforms to Social Security that will allow us to avoid abrupt changes 
for future beneficiaries. Delay makes it more difficult for hard-
working Americans to gradually adjust their plans and makes it more 
likely they will be hit with an uncertain blow to benefits or more 
taxes.
  My amendment calls for a reserve fund to allow Congress to consider 
legislation submitted by President Obama to protect current 
beneficiaries and save Social Security for future generations.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Wyden amendment, which does not 
seem directed at bipartisan discussion.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, this is a very important amendment, and 
I hope the American people listen carefully to what is in it. As 
Senator Hatch indicated, it protects current beneficiaries. In other 
words, they are not going to cut benefits for those currently on Social 
Security. But if you are 63 years of age, 64 years of age, 65 years of 
age, watch out. They are going after you.
  I would suggest there is a way to extend the solvency of Social 
Security, and it deals with raising the cap and asking wealthy people 
to contribute more. We can make Social Security solvent for the next 50 
years without cutting benefits for anybody. I urge a ``no'' vote on the 
Hatch amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
498.
  Mr. ENZI. 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 legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mr. Cruz).
  The result was announced--yeas 75, nays 24, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 83 Leg.]

                                YEAS--75

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Carper
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wicker

                                NAYS--24

     Baldwin
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cardin
     Casey
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Leahy
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Udall
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Cruz
       
  The amendment (No. 498) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 471

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). Under the previous order, there 
will now be 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in 
relation to amendment No. 471, offered by the Senator from Rhode 
Island, Mr. Whitehouse, for the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden.
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, colleagues, Social Security is a promise 
between workers and seniors that should never be broken, and Social 
Security benefits ought to be protected and should not be cut.
  The Congress needs to take steps to ensure that Social Security can 
pay full benefits for future generations and must avoid creating 
artificial roadblocks to the proper use of Social Security trust funds.
  The House of Representatives has refused to do that even though 
Social Security trust funds today have a balance of $2.8 trillion, and 
should be able to pay all earned benefits until 2033.
  Support this amendment. Don't privatize Social Security.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I know all my colleagues are committed to 
preserving Social Security. We all want Social Security to be there for 
today's and tomorrow's seniors. However, the Wyden amendment is not 
germane to the budget resolution.
  The Finance Committee has jurisdiction over the Social Security 
program, both its benefits and finance structure. The Budget Committee 
has no purview over the Social Security program.
  Moreover, the Wyden amendment instructs the Finance Committee how to 
write the legislation--language that is inappropriate for a budget 
resolution. In fact, it is corrosive. It damages the privilege of the 
budget.
  For this reason, I am compelled, as chairman of the Budget Committee, 
to raise a point of order against the Wyden amendment. I make a point 
of order that this amendment violates section 305(b)(2) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this amendment is very clear, unlike the

[[Page S1768]]

Hatch amendment. This amendment says we do not support cuts to Social 
Security--not for current beneficiaries, not for future beneficiaries. 
That is what this amendment is about.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive all applicable 
sections of the act for purposes of this pending 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 motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mr. Cruz).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 84 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--48

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Cruz
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 51, the nays are 
48.
  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.


                           Amendment No. 357

  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. 357, offered by the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, President Obama's budget has gotten some 
pretty rough coverage in the media recently. For example, the Los 
Angeles Times called the President's annual budget ``. . . a strange, 
almost fictional document.''
  An article in Politico said, ``As he prepares to deliver his budget 
on Monday, President Barack Obama is lurching to the left.''
  Another Politico article said, ``It's a progressive's dream version 
of Obama, untethered from earlier centrist leanings. . . .''
  The President's budget has not had a great voting history in the 
Senate. Since 2011, there were only 2 votes for the President's 
proposed budget and 1,023 votes against it. This is an opportunity for 
all Members of the Senate to express their views on President Obama's 
proposed budget.
  I recommend and ask that my colleagues vote no on this budget.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I don't know whose budget Senator Cornyn 
is presenting, but it is certainly not the President's budget. The 
President's budget recommends raising the minimum wage, and that is not 
in Senator Cornyn's proposal.
  The President's budget includes 2 years of free community college. 
That is what the American people want, and it is not in Senator 
Cornyn's proposal.
  The President's budget talks about a fair tax proposal, not more tax 
breaks for billionaires, and that is not in Senator Cornyn's proposal.
  I will vote no because I am not quite sure what is in Senator 
Cornyn's proposal, but it is certainly not what President Obama 
presented to the American people.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, do I have any time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 seconds remaining.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I say to my friend that this is the 
President's proposed budget. Senators can vote yes or no. I am glad to 
hear the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Senator Sanders, is 
going to vote no. I will vote no, and I encourage all Senators to vote 
no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 20 seconds remaining.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, if Senator Cornyn wishes to bring a 
proposal that has 2 years of free community college to the floor, which 
is in the President's budget, I invite my friend to do that.
  Is the Senator from Texas up for that?
  If Senator Cornyn wants to bring a proposal to raise the minimum wage 
to $10.10 an hour, which is in the President's budget, I invite my 
friend to do that.
  Will the Senator from Texas introduce that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  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.
  Under the previous order, the question is on agreeing to the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mr. Cruz).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 1, nays 98, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 85 Leg.]

                                YEAS--1

       
     Carper
       

                                NAYS--98

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Cruz
       
  The amendment (No. 357) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                           Amendment No. 545

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and call up Kirk amendment No. 545.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Enzi], for Mr. Kirk, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 545.

  Mr. ENZI. 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:

[[Page S1769]]

   (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to 
reimposing waived sanctions and imposing new sanctions against Iran for 
   violations of the Joint Plan of Action or a comprehensive nuclear 
                               agreement)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO REIMPOSING 
                   WAIVED SANCTIONS AND IMPOSING NEW SANCTIONS 
                   AGAINST IRAN FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE JOINT PLAN 
                   OF ACTION OR A COMPREHENSIVE NUCLEAR AGREEMENT.

       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 immediately 
     reimpose waived sanctions and impose new sanctions against 
     the Government of Iran for violations of the Joint Plan of 
     Action or a comprehensive agreement on Iran's nuclear 
     program, 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 2016 through 2020 or the period of the total of 
     fiscal years 2016 through 2025.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.


                           Amendment No. 412

  Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 412.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Rounds], for himself and 
     Mr. Inhofe, proposes an amendment numbered 412.

  Mr. ROUNDS. 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 prevent the 
Environmental Protection Agency and the United States Fish and Wildlife 
Service from engaging in closed-door settlement agreements that ignore 
                     impacted States and counties)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO PREVENT CERTAIN 
                   CLOSED-DOOR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS.

       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 environmental laws and citizen suits, which may 
     include prohibitions on the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency and the Director of the 
     United States Fish and Wildlife Service entering into any 
     closed-door settlement agreement without seeking approval 
     from all State, county, and local governments that would be 
     directly impacted by the agreement, 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 2016 through 2020 or the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, my amendment aims to prevent the 
Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
from entering into settlement agreements without seeking approval from 
State, county, and local governments that would be affected by the 
settlement.
  All too often, rather than writing and implementing environmental 
regulations in an open, transparent process, environmental regulations 
are implemented as the result of citizen suits that establish arbitrary 
timelines that force the agency to rush through the regulatory process. 
As a result, regulations that affect all sectors of the economy are 
implemented without following the proper administrative procedures.
  It is unfortunate, but legislating by lawsuit has become commonplace 
as agencies repeatedly miss deadlines and are challenged by citizen 
suits alleging improper agency action.
  A 2014 report by the Government Accountability Office found that 
legal mandates do influence an agency's selection of regulatory 
options. These lawsuits leave inadequate time for agencies to analyze 
the options available to them. As a result of this shortened timeline, 
agencies cannot do a proper analysis of proposed regulations. This 
leads to inadequate time for notice and comment. It keeps the citizens 
in the dark about economic impacts of significant regulations and does 
not allow for State and local governments to provide input regarding 
how these regulations will affect them.
  For example, in 2011, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service entered into 
a settlement agreement with environmental groups that will lead to the 
potential listing of more than 250 species. Millions of acres across 
the United States will be impacted. Yet no State or local government 
was allowed to give input into the process.
  Similarly, the Environmental Protection Agency has entered into 
settlement agreements on issues such as regional haze, which have no 
impact on public health but cost billions of dollars in impacted 
States. While the EPA is willing to talk to radical environmental 
groups in the settlement process, they did not consult with the 
impacted States or communities.
  A vote for this amendment is a vote to say that we should fix this 
problem and that we make certain that our State and local governments 
are given a say in settlement agreements that will have impacts within 
their borders. A vote against this amendment is a vote against 
transparency and a vote to give radical environmental groups more say 
in the process than the States or local governments where the impacts 
actually occur.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I have come to the floor this afternoon to 
speak about our budget and how the choices we will make over the next 
few days will reflect our values and priorities.
  As someone who has acted as a countywide elected official writing 
balanced budgets, I have long viewed them as not just a collection of 
numbers and programs but also really a statement about our basic values 
and a reflection of what we hold dear. We can say we believe in this or 
that, but at the end of the day, our budgets tell the true story. Over 
the last 2 years in this body, following the hard work and leadership 
of Democratic Senators Patty Murray and Barbara Mikulski, the previous 
chairs of Budget and Appropriations Committees, we have taken important 
strides to stabilize our government's finances, invest in our middle 
class, and protect the most vulnerable among us.
  After a few really hard years, our economy has begun to heal and grow 
again. We are now in the longest period of uninterrupted private sector 
job growth in our Nation's history--a period in which our businesses 
have created 12 million new jobs. Today, our national unemployment rate 
stands at 5.5 percent, and the deficit has fallen nearly two-thirds 
since the depths of the great recession. At a time when the economies 
around the world are slowing down, ours remains, relatively speaking, a 
global bright spot.
  We need to continue on this path. We need to invest in this growth. 
And in my view, it is the wrong time to hit the brakes on our economy's 
resurgence.
  Unfortunately, the budget proposed by Senate Republicans misses the 
mark and would, I fear, reverse these gains. It denies our basic values 
by balancing the budget on the backs of the poor and middle class while 
cutting investments essential for our Nation's competitiveness and 
future.
  It relies on some budget gimmicks to actually increase defense 
spending while making broad cuts elsewhere, and it uses overly rosy 
predictions about growth and our debt that has time and again proven 
false. It does all this while protecting tax breaks for the very 
wealthiest and corporations at the expense of working families.
  It is my hope that we can reach a budget that is responsible, 
balanced, and fair, that takes stock of our needs today and what the 
future will demand of us. So I would like to take a few minutes and 
outline broadly what I think our budget priorities should be.
  First, we need a budget that preserves our social safety net by 
building a circle of protection around the most vulnerable among us and 
protecting the promises we have made to our seniors. Part of the basic 
bargain we make in this country is that when one of our neighbors falls 
on truly hard times,

[[Page S1770]]

their country offers a hand up. We need to ensure these basic 
protections to health care, food, and a home are there for those of our 
neighbors in deepest need. It is also part of that same bargain that 
after a lifetime of work, you will be able to retire with dignity and 
some security. As workers, we all pay in to Medicare and Social 
Security, and we need to ensure that as future generations of Americans 
grow up, raise their families, and contribute to our economy, the 
benefits they have spent their lives paying into will be there for 
them, just as they were for previous generations.
  Yes, we should have a conversation about how to responsibly bring our 
long-term health care costs under control, but we can't do it the way 
this budget does, by irresponsibly shifting costs to seniors and the 
poor.
  For retired Delawareans, for instance, the Republican budget would 
reverse an important reform in the Affordable Care Act and would raise 
prescription drug costs by an average of $1,100 a year.
  Second, just as we are there for each other when times are hard, we 
must rebound and grow together by making specific and thoughtful 
investments in our future. We need a budget that understands that 
without critical investments in infrastructure, research, and science, 
our economy will struggle to grow and support a strong middle class. We 
need a budget that invests in our middle class and gives working 
families a fair shot--an economy that is built on growth and 
opportunity. These investments in growth are the basic building blocks 
of our economy. They make up our economic backbone and help create an 
environment for our Nation's drive and dynamism to flourish.
  Growth, however, requires infrastructure. We have a roughly $3.6 
trillion infrastructure debt--investments in infrastructure that are 
due by 2020. Every year we put off investing in our roads, bridges, 
tunnels, and ports. Every year we fall behind our competitors, and we 
make it harder for our businesses to grow and create jobs. Growth also 
requires investing in research and development. Our long-term 
competitiveness depends on our ability to innovate faster than our 
competitors. Although businesses already invest a huge amount in R&D, 
the Federal Government plays a critical role through our national labs, 
through the manufacturing extension partnership, and other grant 
programs that either directly invest in or incentivize the research 
that leads to innovation.

  Finally, growth in our country requires ensuring that every child has 
access to a quality education. It requires making it easier for 
families to send their kids to college and easier for young people to 
manage the costs of their college through managing student loans after 
school, and it requires strengthening the real connection between the 
classroom and workplace so education can be a sturdier rung to a longer 
ladder of opportunity.
  Throughout our history our middle class has thrived and our economy 
has been strong when we made these sorts of investments in our economy 
and middle class. We need a budget that continues those investments.
  Finally, we need a budget that lowers our deficit responsibly, in a 
way that is fair and forward-looking--not on the backs of the middle 
class and poor and not done in a way that kills jobs and stifles 
growth. Over the last few years we have done a lot to get our deficit 
under control, using about three-quarters of spending cuts and about a 
quarter of increased revenue. We have also benefitted from a steadily 
growing economy which has lowered our deficit.
  As we move forward, we need balanced deficit reduction that preserves 
our investments in our future and our promises to each other. That will 
mean raising some revenues by asking the wealthy and corporations to 
pay a bit more, just as it will mean making hard choices over the long 
run about the true causes of our deficits and debt.
  But let's be clear. We can do this while investing in our future and 
keeping our promises to our seniors, to our veterans, and to each 
other. The best way to lower our deficit is to grow our economy. So we 
need to invest in that growth. After all, an airplane needs an engine 
to take off, even in strong headwinds.
  Over the coming days we will be voting on a wide series of amendments 
that will say a lot about our values and priorities. I would urge my 
colleagues to keep in mind that which has always powered our economy 
and will continue to into the future--an economy that gives families a 
fair shot and invests in the strength and opportunity of the middle 
class and those fighting to get into the middle class. That is how we 
build an economy. I hope we will dedicate ourselves to a budget that 
will help us do so, far into the future.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daines). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Amendment No. 423, as Modified

  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 423, as modified with 
the changes at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Rubio] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 423, as modified.

  Mr. RUBIO. 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, as modified, is as follows:

 (Purpose: To increase new budget authority fiscal years 2016 and 2017 
  and modify outlays for fiscal years 2016 through 2022 for National 
                     Defense (budget function 050))

       On page 14, line 2, strike ``$620,263,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$696,776,000,000''.
       On page 14, line 3, strike ``$605,189,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$658,021,000,000''.
       On page 14, line 6, strike ``$544,506,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$657,496,000,000''.
       On page 14, line 7, strike ``$576,934,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$659,073,000,000''.
       On page 14, line 11, strike ``$588,049,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$588,239,000,000''.
       On page 14, line 15, strike ``$546,685,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$577,154,000,000''.
       On page 14, line 19, strike ``$573,614,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$580,468,000,000''.
       On page 14, line 23, strike ``$586,038,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$588,936,000,000''.
       On page 15, line 3, strike ``$596,103,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$596,065,000,000''.

  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, let me begin by saying that I believe 
defense spending is the most important obligation of the Federal 
Government. That doesn't mean we throw money away or we put money in 
places where it doesn't belong or we fund projects that have no 
utility. But it does mean the most important thing the Federal 
Government does for America is to defend it.
  We have benefitted from the fact that for the last 100 years, America 
has had the most powerful military force on the planet. This is 
especially true since the end of the Second World War. There have been 
times in our history when we tried to save money by cutting back on 
defense spending, and each and every time, it has forced us to come 
back later and spend even more to make up for it.
  It is interesting to point out that in times in the past when we have 
taken a peace dividend--this idea that the world is no longer unstable 
or unsafe and we can now spend less on defense--each and every time, we 
have had to come back and make up for it later as a new threat emerged. 
I don't think we can make the argument that this is a time when the 
world is stable or peaceful. Yet this is a time of dramatic reductions 
in defense spending.
  During this administration, first came the defense cuts of $480 
billion over 10 years. Adding insult to injury, by the way, was that 
the savings found in the defense budget were redirected to already 
bloated domestic programs.
  Secretary Gates wrote in his memoirs about the extent to which he was 
forced to cut costs, saying: ``[N]o other department had done anything 
comparable--even proportionally.''
  This was then followed by tens of billions more in defense cuts each 
year through sequestration, which will add up to a total of a trillion 
dollars over the next decade, despite the warnings of three secretaries 
of defense and our entire military leadership.
  All in all, inflation-adjusted defense spending has declined 21 
percent since

[[Page S1771]]

2010. Even if we discount the drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan, it has 
still declined by a dangerous 12 percent. This is happening at the same 
time that China is undergoing the most expansive, most aggressive 
defense increase in modern history; at a time when Russia, despite 
being eviscerated by economic sanctions, has held their defense 
spending largely harmless; at a time when radical Islam around the 
world--both the rise of ISIS and the existence of Al Qaeda and other 
groups such as al-Nusra and the Khorasan group and others--poses an 
ongoing threat to the United States. This at a time when many of our 
potential adversaries and adversaries, such as North Korea and Iran, 
are developing long-range rocket capabilities that could reach the 
continental United States. This is the worst possible time to be 
reducing our defense spending, and yet that is what we are doing. We 
are setting ourselves up for danger.

  I would recognize that people who have worked hard on this budget 
have tried to find new ways to address this through contingency 
funding. I respect the work they have done, and ultimately that may be 
where we end up. But before we do, it is important for this body to 
have a serious debate about how we are underfunding defense spending in 
this country and the dangers it poses for our future.
  That is the purpose of this amendment. The purpose of this amendment 
is to replace the defense numbers in this budget with the projected 
fiscal year 2016 number from the fiscal 2012 Gates budget. This was the 
last defense budget, the Gates budget, that was put together solely on 
the assessment of the threats we face and the requisite military needs 
to deal with it. It is the budget that the bipartisan congressionally 
mandated National Defense Panel stated was the minimum required to 
reverse course and set the military on more stable footing.
  With that, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to enter into a 
colloquy with my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Cotton.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. RUBIO. I would ask Senator Cotton, who has extensive experience 
both serving in uniform and here in the Senate as well as in the House, 
his views on the dangers this poses, the rates that we are reducing 
military spending, and what it means to the long-term security of the 
United States.
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Florida. I am 
pleased to offer this amendment with him. I do agree that it is 
critical we have this debate on what we should be spending on our 
military. While I respect the work of the Budget Committee, I also call 
attention to the views of the chairman and the ranking member of the 
Armed Services Committee on which I sit, that they would spend $577 
billion on defense next year, which would eliminate sequestration.
  I suggest, as the Senator from Florida did, that we need to look to 
the views of the National Defense Panel, which did draw from Secretary 
Gates' fiscal year 2012 budget, projecting into fiscal year 2016. While 
Secretary Gates had a reputation as a reformer, he had already found 
$450 billion of savings in the Department of Defense at that time. It 
is hard to say there is much fat left.
  Second, as the Senator from Florida pointed out, that was the last 
time the Department of Defense engaged in what we should do in this 
body, which is the budgeting for the military based on the threats we 
face and the strategy we need, not having a strategy that is driven by 
the budget.
  But that is not enough. As the National Defense Panel said itself, at 
$611 billion, that projection is not enough. Why is it not enough? Some 
of the threats the Senator from Florida identified. In the last 4 
years, what have we seen? The Islamic State on the rise, rampaging 
across Iraq and Syria. Iran racing toward a nuclear weapon even as it 
asserts greater control and dominance over Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut, 
and now Sanaa.
  We have seen Russian revisionism, invading a sovereign country in the 
heart of Europe, shooting a civilian airliner out of the sky in the 
heart of Europe, and China on the rise, developing military 
capabilities that are quite clearly directed against the United States 
and our allies in the first island chain. That is why we need this 
debate. That is why we need the military budget the Senator from 
Florida and I are proposing, because the eyes of the world are upon us, 
not just our enemies, but our allies as well, wondering if America will 
not only have the resolve to stand by its commitment but if it will 
have the capabilities to stand by those commitments, whoever the 
Commander in Chief may be.
  But there is one final important group whose eyes are on this 
institution this week. It is our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, and 
our marines, who are wondering if the elected representatives of the 
people will stand with them, will provide them the resources they need 
to be ready, to be trained, equipped, and ready to fight our Nation's 
wars so they do not have to fight them in the first place.
  Earlier today, I had the great benefit of being able to meet with a 
group of Army majors and captains, the mid-career officers, just like 
the mid-career noncommissioned officers who are the backbone of our 
military. Two of those men I started officer candidate school with at 
Fort Benning 10 years ago this coming Friday, one of whom has been 
seriously injured.
  To a person, they all said that training is down, families are 
strained, operations are stressed, equipment is overused, and they 
wanted to know, will the Congress of the United States give them the 
tools they need to fight and win our country's wars? That is why I am 
proud to stand here with the Senator from Florida to offer this 
amendment and say that, yes, we will stand by them. Yes, we will make 
sure they are ready to fight and win our wars so they do not have to 
fight them in the first place.
  I yield back.
  Mr. RUBIO. I would say there is not much to add to what the Senator 
from Arkansas has pointed out. As he well knows, the importance that we 
have made to the men and women of our armed services, that is, that we 
will never put them in a fair fight. It will always be an unfair fight 
to their advantage. They will be the best trained, best equipped, and 
best-taken-care of fighting men and women on the planet.
  We cannot keep that commitment if we continue to reduce spending on 
the military and on defense at the rate we are going today.
  I would add one more point, that is, that much of the world security 
today is based upon American military alliances that are built upon 
American military assurances, so, for example, in the Asia-Pacific 
region, where the Japanese, the South Koreans, and other allies in the 
region look to an American umbrella of defense to provide them 
certainty in the face of real risk, whether it is territorial claims 
made by China that are illegitimate, or the nuclear threat of North 
Korea.
  Why haven't the South Koreans developed their own nuclear weapons? 
Because they believe the United States will be there to help them 
defend themselves. Why have the Japanese never felt compelled to use 
their technological know-how to build a nuclear program? Because they 
believe the United States is their ally and will come to their 
collective self-defense.

  These countries do their own spending. The Japanese have a very 
capable military force and a great force multiplier in the region, 
despite not being called a military force.
  The South Koreans are a very impressive fighting force and have a 
very courageous history. But that American security alliance in the 
region is critical to the long-term stability and security of that 
region, a region where a lot of global growth is happening on the 
economic front, where 50, 60, 70 percent of global trade and commerce 
transits through the South and East China Seas.
  The U.S. Navy's presence in the region, along with our other 
branches, is critical for the defense of the region. The same is true 
with the NATO Alliance in Europe. It relies on American security 
guarantees. The same is true--if a terrible deal, God forbid, is 
arrived at by this administration with Iran, our partners and allies in 
the region, particularly Saudi Arabia and others, are going to look to 
the United States and say: Well, what are you going to do to help us be 
protected from an Iranian nuclear weapon, with the missiles they are 
able to acquire?
  So what is going to happen when they turn and we say to them: We are

[[Page S1772]]

with you; we are going to be there; We are going to continue to work 
with you; we are going to continue to live up to our defense 
capabilities, but we do not have the capabilities to meet our 
obligations? In essence, you can talk pivoting to Asia, but you have to 
have something to pivot with. If we have eviscerated our military, we 
have eviscerated our naval capacity, if we are on pace, as we are now, 
to have the smallest Air Force and the smallest Navy we have had in a 
very long time, we can say whatever we want, but our allies will not 
believe us because we will not have the capabilities to meet it.
  The other challenge we have is when we talk about modernization, we 
are not talking about the Commander in Chief today. When we decide how 
much money we are going to spend on modernizing our military 
capabilities, what we are deciding is what are the technologies and 
tools that are going to be available to a future Commander in Chief in 
5, 10, or 15 years.
  These innovative systems that we use today that have cut down on 
civilian casualties, that allow us to improve our targeting, our 
intelligence-gathering capabilities, that have made the United States 
the premier fighting force in all of human history--all of those things 
were developed a decade ago or longer, through years of experimentation 
and testing, through innovation.
  So if we cut back on that now, in 10 years a future Commander in 
Chief will be faced with a threat to our national security, and will 
not have the latest, greatest technology on the planet to address it.
  What about the asymmetrical capabilities that China and others are 
developing? Instead of trying to out-aircraft-carrier us, they build 
weapons to destroy aircraft carriers. As we try to adjust to that 
threat, what is going to happen in a few years if we do not keep pace?
  The absence of a long-range bomber, the need to replace an aging 
submarine fleet, a Navy that is headed for a catastrophic low number of 
ships, all of these things need to be confronted, not to mention the 
fact that we are not modernizing at an efficient and effective rate our 
nuclear arsenal, which is a key part of our deterrence, in a world 
where China, Russia, and others have significant stockpiles of weapons, 
particularly the Russians.
  All of those things are important. These are long-range, long-term 
decisions that will have an impact on a future Congress, on a future 
Commander in Chief, and on our children and grandchildren, who will be 
the ones who have to live in that world. I promise you that a world 
where America is no longer the most capable fighting force on the 
planet is a world that is more chaotic and less safe.
  I look forward to having a debate on this. I encourage my colleagues 
to rally around these numbers. This is what we should be funding 
defense at. As my colleague, the Senator from Arkansas, accurately 
pointed out, and I am honored to work with him on this, strategy should 
not be driven by defense spending, the defense spending should be 
driving the strategy. In essence, to put it succinctly, we should not 
have a strategy that is based on limited resources. We are going to 
have to do the best we can with limited resources. We should first 
outline a strategy. This is what the strategy should be for the future 
of our country to keep us safe. Then we should fund that strategy, not 
the other way around. That is not what we are doing now. We are setting 
a dangerous precedent. More importantly, we are putting at risk the 
national security of this country. Once you have made that decision, it 
is very difficult to reverse it in a timely way. We have learned this 
lesson the hard way multiple times in our history. I hope we do not 
have to it learn it again.
  I look forward to working with the Senator from Arkansas on this 
amendment, and with my colleagues. There is great respect for the work 
that has gone into this budget, and the work of many others who are 
equally committed to the national defense of our country. I acknowledge 
the hard work they have put into finding a solution to get more money 
into defense, but it is not enough. Everyone knows that. The sooner we 
deal with this, the safer our country is going to be.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, in response to the colloquy that just 
transpired, I would simply say that for all of the earnest and I am 
sure sincere spirit behind it, there is no willingness to even close 
one corporate tax loophole to support our Nation's defense, which I 
think puts into some context the priority in which that is held as a 
practical matter, as opposed to a theoretical matter.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to urge this Chamber to 
wake up to the urgent threat of climate change. I have done this every 
week the Senate has been in session for nearly 3 years. Today is my 
94th time. I have asked my colleagues to heed the warnings from our 
scientists, from our military and national security professionals, from 
many of our leading American corporations and executives, from their 
own home-State universities, and from so many of our faith leaders.
  Since it is budget week, we would do well to also consider that for 
years the Government Accountability Office has placed climate change on 
its biannual high-risk list of the greatest fiscal challenges facing 
the Federal Government. But even so, there is no attention from the 
other side.
  This risk is particularly great in coastal areas, such as in my home 
State of Rhode Island, where sea levels rise ever closer to 
infrastructure and property, and extreme weather exacts an ever heavier 
toll. Secretary of the Treasury Lew put it pretty plainly: If the 
fiscal burden from climate change continues to rise, it will create 
budgetary pressures that will force hard tradeoffs--larger deficits or 
higher taxes. And these tradeoffs would make it more challenging to 
invest in growth, to meet the needs of an aging population, and to 
provide for our national defense.
  My Republican colleagues want to slash spending. Indeed, they have 
almost a fixation on slashing spending. They say they do not want to 
leave a financial mess for future generations to bear, but they ignore 
the need to slash our carbon emissions and don't care a bit about 
leaving an environmental mess for future generations to bear. They 
refuse because the polluters and their allies have built a fearsome 
political machine in Citizens United, and the polluters demand that the 
Republicans follow their denier script.
  Well, unfortunately, nature won't wait for our politics to sort 
themselves out, and nowhere are these changes occurring more clearly 
than in our oceans. The changes in our oceans are real, and they are 
measurable. They follow the laws of biology, of chemistry, and of 
physics. Our steady flood of carbon pollution has real consequences.
  Scientists from the University of California, Stanford, and Rutgers 
recently published a peer-reviewed paper in Science magazine on marine 
defaunation. ``Defaunation'' is a big word for the widespread loss of 
animal life in the ocean. Human activities, they argue, including 
overfishing, pollution, and carbon emissions, are wiping out sea life. 
Populations of marine vertebrates, including sea birds, mammals, and 
turtles, have decreased by an average of 22 percent over the last 40 
years. Fish have declined by nearly 40 percent. Major fish species have 
crashed 90 percent. Coral is having massive bleaching and die-off. We 
are living, the authors say, in a time of ``empty reefs,'' ``empty 
estuaries,'' and ``empty bays.''
  How is it that carbon pollution changes the ocean environment? Pretty 
simply, greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trap heat. That is not news. 
We have known that since Abraham Lincoln was President. Much of that 
heat goes right into the ocean. Globally, oceans absorb 90 percent of 
the heat captured by greenhouse gases.
  Well, all that heat disrupts marine life. Corals, for example, will 
expel the algae living in their tissues when water is too warm, causing 
the coral to turn completely white and die in what is known as coral 
bleaching.
  Other species that aren't stuck in one place like coral are literally 
swimming away. We have seen fish, accustomed to specific temperatures, 
migrating to cooler waters. Along the entire Northeast seaboard, the 
movement

[[Page S1773]]

of fish farther north and into deeper waters is well documented. NOAA 
has even developed tools to allow fisheries managers and scientists to 
go online and track the movement of different species through time.
  I have had fishermen back home tell me they are catching fish their 
fathers and grandfathers never saw come up in their nets. One Rhode 
Island fisherman told me: ``Sheldon, it's getting weird out there.'' 
Forty percent of fishermen in the Northeast reported catching new fish 
species in places where they wouldn't expect to find them.
  In a recent Center for American Progress survey, those who believe 
climate change is happening outnumber deniers four to one.
  Just last week, the Providence Journal, my own home State paper, 
reported on the continuing loss of ice smelt from the waters of the 
Northeast. The smelt live in estuaries and bays in the wintertime, once 
making it a favorite for ice fishermen. But now where the ice-fishing 
cottages used to cover the ice, there are very few. That fishery has 
crashed. In Narragansett Bay, the winter flounder fishery has crashed.
  From Maine comes a recent news article from our former Republican 
colleague, Olympia Snowe. It is titled, rather bluntly, ``Lack of 
Action on Climate Change is Costing Fishing Jobs.'' Senator Snowe 
reports that the shrimp fishery in the Gulf of Maine was closed this 
winter for the second year in a row because the shrimp are nowhere to 
be found.
  The shrimp fishery has crashed, and the crash has been precipitous. 
As recently as 2010, shrimpers in the Gulf of Maine hauled in 12 
million pounds of northern shrimp. By the time they had to close the 
fishery, the catch was down to less than 600,000 pounds. One likely 
culprit is warming seas. The Gulf of Maine is at the southern end of 
the shrimp's range, and the Gulf of Maine is warming exceptionally 
fast. An estimate from the Gulf of Maine Research Institute shows that 
water temperatures in the gulf rose eight times faster than the global 
average in recent years.
  The rapid changes in the Gulf of Maine are causing things to get 
strange for the other fisheries as well. Our colleague Angus King has 
come to the floor repeatedly to describe the northward march of the 
iconic Maine lobster.
  Cod populations in the Gulf of Maine suffered for years from 
overfishing. Now the cod are struggling to recover as temperatures in 
the gulf increase. The cod might not return, instead seeking out cooler 
water elsewhere.
  Another scientific fact: Warmer temperatures make oxygen less soluble 
in water. When oxygen is too low for marine life to flourish, that 
creates dead zones, which are growing around our oceans in size and in 
number. If carbon pollution continues at pace, global oxygen levels in 
the ocean are predicted to drop by more than 3 percent over the 
century. Do we tell the fish to hold their breath while we wait to wake 
up?
  Carbon pollution also makes the oceans more acidic--another 
scientific fact. Ocean water has absorbed roughly a quarter of all 
historic carbon dioxide emissions, driving up the pH level of the 
oceans at rates not seen in perhaps the last 300 million years. To put 
300 million years in context, that is more than 1,000 times as long as 
our species has been on this planet. We are gambling with very big 
changes that we have never seen in human time and that are a long way 
back in geologic time.
  Acidifying waters make it harder for animals such as oysters or even 
the humble pteropod--a main component of the salmon diet--and a lot of 
other creatures at the base of the oceanic food chain to make their 
shells and develop properly from juveniles to adults.
  Increasingly, those acidic oceans are hurting U.S. shellfish, and 
shellfish are a $1 billion American industry. More acidic waters have 
already cost the oyster industry in the Pacific Northwest nearly $110 
million, putting 3,200 jobs at risk. The Pacific Northwest is being hit 
first by ocean acidification, but the effects are expected to be felt 
hardest in the Northeast--my home--according to a recent article in the 
journal Nature Climate Change. Conditions in the Northeast will 
jeopardize the $14 million annual mollusk harvest in my State of Rhode 
Island, putting my home State's coastal communities at real risk of 
economic harm.
  Bill Mook, president of Mook Sea Farm in Maine, testified before the 
Environment and Public Works Committee last summer about the decline in 
oyster larva that he has linked to more acidic water. As he said, 
delicate shellfish hatcheries are ``canaries in the coal mine,'' the 
first victims of a growing menace.
  Yet we still don't listen. From coast to coast and pole to pole, the 
oceans are warning us, and we still do not listen. The authors of the 
Science magazine paper warned that we are headed into ``an era of 
global chemical warfare'' on the oceans--and we don't listen.
  We must wake up to the warnings that are coming from our oceans. The 
evidence is there for everyone to see. It is a matter of measurement, 
basic measurements of temperature, of pH, of sea level--real high 
school science class stuff--that are showing us these changes. Yet we 
won't listen.
  Fishermen in Rhode Island and across the country are already feeling 
these changes. They see them around them.
  Colleagues, if you are not a scientist, go ask the coastal and ocean 
scientists at your home State university. They will give you the 
answer.
  I conclude by going back to what Senator Snowe wrote:

       The loss of Maine's $5 million shrimp fishery should serve 
     as a warning. A similar blow to our $300 million lobster 
     fishery must be avoided at all costs. That will require 
     honest, fact-based discussion and a genuine bipartisan 
     commitment to solutions.

  Well, we have had neither around here for a long time. There has been 
no honest, fact-based discussion, and there has been no bipartisan 
commitment to solutions. That has to change.
  I hope Senator Snowe's fellow Republicans in the Senate will join 
with us Democrats in that honest, fact-based discussion and in a 
genuine bipartisan commitment to solutions. I hope our colleagues will 
unshackle themselves from the fossil fuel industry--which is an 
industry riddled with appalling conflicts of interest on this subject--
and wake the heck up.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Capito). The Senator from Montana.


                           Amendment No. 388

  Mr. DAINES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 388.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Daines] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 388.

  Mr. DAINES. 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 relating to the 
                   designation of national monuments)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO THE 
                   DESIGNATION OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS.

       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 ensuring that State and local governments support 
     designations of national monuments under section 320301 of 
     title 54, United States Code, 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 2016 through 2020 or the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.

  Mr. DAINES. Madam President, as a fifth-generation Montanan and avid 
sportsman, I know firsthand how important Montana's lands and resources 
are to our economy and our way of life. I also know how important it is 
for Montanans to play a strong role in the management of these precious 
parts of our State. In Montana, we understand that our resource use 
must be done responsibly. We understand the importance of protecting 
our State's treasures so that future generations may continue to have 
the same experiences and job opportunities we have today.

[[Page S1774]]

We also know that the Montanans who use and live on the land every day 
best understand how to best protect those resources. But, 
unfortunately, the Obama administration's persistent efforts to stretch 
the true intent of the Antiquities Act threatens Montana's ability to 
manage our State's resources, and it is a trend we are seeing across 
other States as well.

  Too often these unilateral designations completely ignore the needs 
of the local community--the farmers and ranchers, the sportsmen and 
small business owners directly impacted by these new designations. My 
amendment will establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund for legislation 
to ensure States and local governments support national monument 
designations.
  This amendment in no way precludes the President from proposing a 
national monument. However, any bill or designation that has a 
potential to impact land management must be locally driven, not 
spearheaded in Washington, and must have local government and State 
support as well. This amendment ensures the people affected most by 
these designations have a seat at the table and their voices are heard.


                           Amendment No. 389

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending 
amendment and call up my amendment No. 389.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Daines] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 389.

  Mr. DAINES. 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 relating to 
    holding Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
           accountable for failing to pass a balanced budget)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO HOLDING 
                   MEMBERS OF THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF 
                   REPRESENTATIVES ACCOUNTABLE FOR FAILING TO PASS 
                   A BALANCED BUDGET.

       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 holding Members of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives accountable for failing to pass a balanced 
     budget 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 2016 through 2020 or the period of the total of fiscal 
     years 2016 through 2025.

  Mr. DAINES. Madam President, I offer amendment No. 389 to the budget 
resolution to establish a deficit-neutral reserve to hold Members of 
Congress accountable for failing to pass a balanced budget.
  Washington has balanced its budget only five times in the last five 
decades. Let me say that again. Washington has only balanced its budget 
five times in the last 50 years. This is completely unacceptable, and 
it threatens the prosperity of future generations. By strengthening 
accountability and demanding results, my amendment will help restore 
fiscal responsibility--I would call it fiscal sanity--in Washington.
  I have introduced related legislation--the Balanced Budget 
Accountability Act--which would terminate the salaries of Members of 
the House and Senate if their respective Chamber does not pass a 
balanced budget. Simply put, no balanced budget, no pay. It is time to 
hold Congress accountable to the taxpayer. It is time to hit the 
Members of Congress in their pocketbooks if they can't pass a balanced 
budget.
  Chairman Enzi's budget meets this commonsense principle, and by 
passing my amendment to the budget resolution we will reinforce our 
commitment to passing similar balanced budgets in the future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daines). The Senator from West Virginia.

                          ____________________