Congressional Record, Volume 161 Issue 50 (Wednesday, March 25, 2015)

[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 25, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1835-S1840]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2016

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. Con. Res. 11, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 11) setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for
fiscal year 2016 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary
levels for fiscal years 2017 through 2025.

Pending:

Cotton amendment No. 481, to establish a deficit-neutral
fund relating to supporting Israel.
Enzi (for Kirk) amendment No. 545, 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.
Rounds/Inhofe amendment No. 412, 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.
Rubio modified amendment No. 423, 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).
Daines amendment No. 388, to establish a deficit-neutral
reserve fund relating to the designation of national
monuments.
Daines amendment No. 389, 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.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 10:30
a.m. will be equally divided and controlled by the two managers or
their designees.
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, first of all, I wish to thank Chairman Enzi
for his courtesy in allowing me to take a few minutes to discuss a
bipartisan amendment I will be offering on this bill. It deals with
what I think is going to be an enormous challenge this summer for the
West, and that is dealing with this wildfire challenge and the prospect
that we could literally have enormous fires--what could be virtually
infernos--throughout the West this summer.
I make that judgment because recently when I was home, I got a
briefing. For example, in Medford, OR, they told me it was the driest
it had been for 25 years. In Medford, when you get an update on the
fires--and, colleagues, it is worth noting that nobody used to have a
fire briefing in March. That is just unheard of. We have fire briefings
well into the summer. But fires are getting to be a year-round
occurrence. I was there in March, and the fire experts said it is going
to be very dry. When you look southward to California, all you see is
dry, dry, dry.
The fact is that as it gets drier and as it gets hotter on the forest
floor, should lightning strike, which is very common in rural America,
all of a sudden you can have an inferno on your hands and one that
really knows no boundaries and can affect private property owners,
State lands, and Federal lands. We had an important hearing in the
Energy and Natural Resources Committee the other day on the sportsmen's
bill. It looked as if there were a lot of good ideas in the bipartisan
bill, but it will be pretty hard to go hunting and fishing in the
forests this summer if the forests are burning up.
So what a bipartisan group of us from the West want to do--and I
particularly commend our colleague Senator Crapo of Idaho. He and I
have teamed up on this effort. We have a large bipartisan coalition of
Senators who have joined us. We want to fix the broken system of
fighting wildfire in America.
What happens today, colleagues, is that the accounts for prevention
get short shrift. In effect, the work that needs to be done with the
smaller trees and thinning out the underbrush doesn't get the funding
that is needed, so what happens is, as a result of the lack of
prevention, you have these bigger fires and you have to put them out.
The accounts for dealing with fire suppression are also short of money,
so what happens at that point is the agencies borrow from the
prevention fund to put the fire out, and the problem just gets worse
and worse.
So what Senator Crapo and I, with, as I have indicated, a large
bipartisan coalition of Senators, are seeking to do is to end that kind
of fire borrowing. What we are proposing is that the biggest fires--
perhaps the 1 percent of the fires that really turn into infernos--you
would fight those from the disaster fund because they are, in fact,
disasters.
We have received an analysis from the budget officials indicating
that this would really be a wash from a budgeting standpoint because,
in effect, while you do spend a bit of money from the disaster fund
putting out these infernos, you also generate some real savings from
the prevention fund by not having as many fires in the first place.
What our bipartisan amendment will do is give the Departments of
Agriculture and Interior the opportunity to access the disaster fund
for that 1 percent of the fires that can really break a community
apart. It seems to me that Americans across the country who live in
communities where there are these fires deserve to know their homes and
lives are not going to be threatened needlessly. That is what we will
be able to prevent with this bipartisan amendment.
Freeing up the Forest Service funds that our proposal will do will
ensure that the natural resources agencies have the resources they need
to improve forest health and fund the very preventive work that is
needed to reduce the size and severity of future fires.
We are going to be joined in this amendment. As I have indicated,
Senator Crapo and I base it on our bipartisan bill. Senators Stabenow
and Baldwin will be cosponsors, and I believe others will as well.
It is an important amendment and it is an urgent amendment because we
need to have this in place quickly so as to give the natural resources
agencies and our communities the tools they need this summer.
It is a real wake-up call when you get a fire briefing in March. That
is an indication that we have a very, very difficult fire season coming
up. This bipartisan amendment ensures that in a cost-effective way we
give our natural resources agencies the tools they need to fight these
infernos and protect our communities.
Once again, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee,
Senator Enzi, for giving me this time.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.

[[Page S1836]]

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his
comments.
One of the things that has concerned me since I came to the Senate is
the fact that, in my first year alone, I believe we spent about $3
billion in disaster relief. Subsequently, it increased to $5 billion
for disasters per year, and now it is about $7 billion in disasters a
year. As an accountant, one of the things I have always said is, if you
know something is going to happen, you ought to put it in the budget.
So now you will find that there is $7 billion in disaster relief
funding for each of the 10 years in this budget. Using these funds for
fires and major disasters sounds like a good idea to me.
I am a little bit rankled when I hear somebody say this budget is a
farce. It is as good an effort as a person can put together in 6 weeks
when there hasn't been one for 8 years. That effort involves a lot of
research, going back to find out where the problems were, why it wasn't
done, and what needed to be done. I am pleased with the budget. But, of
course, the reason we have this process--in which we had the committee
mark-up last week and considered a number of amendments and now will
consider many more amendments here on the floor--is so that everybody
can participate in seeing if we can complete the budget. It won't be
perfect when we finish, but it will be better than it is right now, and
it will be better when we start tomorrow morning.
Before we continue consideration of our balanced budget resolution
today, I think it is worthwhile to reflect on what we accomplished
yesterday for America's hard-working families. It was a good day
yesterday as we approved amendments to prevent workplace retaliation
against employees who ask or talk about salaries; to oppose cuts to
Medicaid; to coordinate care for medically complex children with
multiple serious, rare, or chronic illnesses; and to help our veterans
gain timely access to health care. As Senator Ayotte said yesterday,
her amendment would ``ensure veterans don't have to wait in line, that
they can exercise private care options when they want to.'' I am proud
to say that is something we all support.
The debate this week is a unique opportunity for hard-working
taxpayers to see an open and transparent legislative process, with
Members from both sides of the aisle offering, debating, and voting on
amendments to this resolution. This is something we haven't had in the
past 8 years, and I think Members are energized to be able to do what
they were sent here to do--the people's business.
Among the topics we will consider today are: enhancing America's
energy security, protecting personal property rights from such agencies
as the EPA, defending taxpayers against efforts to impose a carbon tax,
helping veterans get better access to VA medical facilities,
simplifying student loan repayment options, and saving Medicare.
I again thank Members for offering amendments that will help make our
government more efficient, effective, and accountable to America's
hard-working taxpayers. It is what the American people want and
deserve.
I look forward to a strong and vigorous debate about our policies
today.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.

Amendment No. 347

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside and that I be allowed to call up my amendment
No. 347 and that the amendment be made pending.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Barrasso], for himself, Mr.
Sullivan, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Wicker, Mrs. Capito,
Mr. Boozman, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Coats, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Vitter,
Mr. Isakson, and Mr. Moran, proposes an amendment numbered
347.

Mr. BARRASSO. 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 spending-neutral reserve fund to keep the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act focused on protection of water
quality, to establish bright lines for Federal jurisdiction, and to
create clear and unambiguous exemptions for features that the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency or the Secretary
of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, claim they are not
seeking to regulate)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. SPENDING-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO KEEPING
THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT FOCUSED
ON THE PROTECTION OF WATER QUALITY.

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 Federal jurisdiction under the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)
is focused on water quality, which may include limiting
jurisdiction based on the movement of birds, mammals, or
insects through the air or over the land, the movement of
water through the ground, or the movement of rainwater or
snowmelt over the land, or limiting jurisdiction over
puddles, isolated ponds, roadside ditches, irrigation
ditches, stormwater systems, wastewater systems, or water
delivery, reuse, or reclamation systems, by the amounts
provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided
that such legislation would not raise new revenue and 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. BARRASSO. Mr. President, this amendment that was just called up
and made pending deals with the regulations the Obama administration
has proposed that would expand the Clean Water Act. The rule is an
attempt to change the definition of what the law calls waters of the
United States.
The Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers
first proposed the rule last year. They expect to have it finalized in
the next few months. Well, under this rule, the definition of ``waters
of the United States'' would include ditches, would include dry areas
where water flows only for a short period of time after it rains.
Federal regulations have never before listed ditches and other
manmade features as ``waters of the United States.'' This would be an
alarming step. It would have a huge impact on farmers, ranchers,
families, and small businesses all across America. People whose
livelihood requires that they put a shovel in the ground would suddenly
find it much more difficult to make a living. The rule would amount to
a tax on family farmers and ranchers to use their own land after it
rains. These are people who just want to grow crops, raise cattle, take
care of their families, maybe even just enjoy their own backyards. I
hear this every weekend at home in Wyoming. I heard about it today from
students from Lusk, WY, in Niobrara County. Now, Washington bureaucrats
would have a say in how all of these people use their property.
I oppose this rule. I would like to see it scrapped entirely. That is
why last year I introduced the Protecting Water and Property Rights Act
of 2014 to block the rule, to roll back this dangerous Washington
overreach.
My bill had 38 cosponsors in the Senate, Members who heard from their
constituents back home about how worried they were about this harmful
new rule. We heard from business owners, who told us the uncertainty
the rule creates only delays economic investment and delays job
creation. Well, the Environmental Protection Agency says our concerns
are overblown. The administration says there is a lot of
misunderstanding about what this regulation covers.
Gina McCarthy, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, gave a speech last week. She said, ``We're not interested in
the vast majority of ditches--roadside ditches, irrigation ditches--
those were never covered.'' She also went on to say that the Agency
could have been, as she said, ``more crystal clear out of the gate
about what we were and were not proposing.''
Well, my amendment would help make sure this rule is crystal clear.
It simply lists things that the Environmental Protection Agency
Administrator and others in the Obama administration have already said
would not be regulated under this proposed rule. That is it.
My amendment would put limits on how the Environmental Protection
Agency or the Army Corps of Engineers

[[Page S1837]]

determines the extent of Washington control. The limits would include
not allowing the agencies to control water based on the movement of
birds, mammals, or insects.
The amendment would prevent determinations based upon the movement of
water through the ground or the movement of rainwater or snowmelt over
the land.
Finally, my amendment would specifically say that Federal
jurisdiction under the Water Pollution Control Act does not extend to
things such as puddles, isolated ponds, roadside ditches, and
wastewater systems. The Obama administration has said it does not
intend for its rules to cover any of these features. Well, this
amendment spells it out. There will be no more room for uncertainty and
no more room for misunderstandings. It will then be crystal clear.
Of course, some people may not want the rule to be crystal clear.
They may want to have some uncertainty in the rule. They may want to
have unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats in Washington to be able to
change their minds and then go back on their word--as we have seen them
do in the past--about what the regulation covers and what it does not.
If there is a Senator here who favors that kind of uncertainty, then
they can vote against my amendment.
As I said, I have been opposed to this rule from the very beginning.
This amendment does not block the rule, and it does nothing to prohibit
the Environmental Protection Agency or the Army Corps of Engineers from
regulating the true waters of the United States. It simply takes the
administration at their word. If they say the rule is not meant to
cover something, this just spells it out.
I urge Senators to vote in favor of this amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, before I begin my remarks, will the Chair
notify me when I have used 5 minutes of time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be so notified.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the budget
resolution offered by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
This budget charts the wrong path for our Nation. It does not spur
economic growth or help the middle class because it does not focus on
creating high-quality jobs, boosting wages, or reducing inequality. It
fails to address the cuts to government investments, which threatens
our Nation's economic and national security. Instead, this budget
stacks the deck against middle-class families by slashing government
investments. It stacks the deck in favor of special interests by paving
the way for huge tax giveaways to powerful special interests and the
wealthiest Americans.
In order to claim the budget will balance in 10 years, it relies on
accounting gimmicks and $5.8 trillion in draconian cuts. It kicks
millions off the health insurance rolls and dismantles health care
reform. But, ironically, it takes credit for the savings that are part
and parcel of the Affordable Care Act, all the while setting the stage
for massive tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.
It would also put powerful special interests ahead of seniors by
forcing Medicare recipients to pay more for prescription drugs and
preventive care. It does not provide adequate safeguards for Social
Security and Medicare. By saying no to closing egregious tax loopholes,
it only increases the pressure to cut programs for seniors and others.
You know, frankly, we have been talking for years here in Washington
about the deficit. But, this budget proposed by my colleagues has a
credibility deficit. So I think most of the observers and commentators
are looking and saying: Well, that is impossible. No one is going to
believe that you can repeal the Affordable Care Act but keep the
savings. No one is going to believe you can do all of those things and
still continue to keep a straight face.
So I think the credibility of the budget is highly questionable.
We should have engaged in a balanced approach to growing our economy
and towards fiscal responsibility. A balanced approach requires not
only making wise reductions in spending, but it also requires raising
revenue. That is the way most government entities operate. Mayors and
Governors have to do it, and they do it, but here, we are avoiding very
difficult, tough choices.
It is obvious there are things that have to be done. They cannot be
wished away. Look at our crumbling infrastructure. As I drive around
Rhode Island and the Northeast after a series of storms, I see the
worst highway situation I think I recall in perhaps my lifetime, but at
least in a long time. Potholes and disruptions are all over our roads.
Americans expect it will be fixed, but you cannot fix it simply by
wishing, you have to have the resources and the investment to make
those corrections.
As we go forward, it is important to go ahead and deal with all of
these issues in a balanced way--not through creative accounting
techniques but by making difficult choices. Programs that are not
working should be cut back. Revenue should be provided for investment
in this country. That is what I think we should and we must do.
I have been particularly active with my colleague Senator McCain on
the Armed Services Committee because the Defense Department is facing
serious financial challenges. All of our service sectors have warned
that if sequestration remains in place, if the Budget Control Act
remains in place, together they will not provide the resources
necessary to adequately fund the readiness, the modernization of our
forces and the welfare of our forces.
Admiral Gortney, for example, who is the commander of NORTHCOM, has
made this point along with everyone else, but he also went further to
make the point that I think is critical when we are talking about
defense and nondefense spending. You cannot draw this bright line
between the Department of Defense and everybody else in terms of our
national security. NORTHCOM, which is responsible for our security in
the United States, depends upon border control agents at our border.
They depend upon the Department of Homeland Security. If that agency is
not adequately funded, if they are suffering through sequestration and
the BCA levels, then we will not have the kind of national security we
need. If it translates to further cuts in TSA agents at our airports,
that will undermine our security.
So this notion that we can draw a nice neat line between the
Department of Defense and give them some more money through different
techniques but ignore the other side of the equation does not work.
One of the most significant examples comes from General John Kelly of
Southern Command. They have the capability of, through satellite
imagery, through other intelligence means, identifying these fast boats
coming out of South America that have drugs and might have human cargo,
possibly terrorists. Knowing where they are and where they are headed
is fine, but unless you have Coast Guard cutters to intercept them, you
will not interdict this traffic. As a result, what we will have is a
hole in our national security. The Coast Guard cutters come from the
Department of Homeland Security.
So I know there has been an effort to use the Overseas Contingency
Operation Fund. Senator Graham, in particular, has been very, very
aggressive with that. But I will try to explain later, if not now:
There are limitations. This fund is directed at our operations against
Al Qaeda and the Taliban under the authorization for the use of
military force. To try to stretch this to build facilities in Alaska
for missile defense--that is quite a stretch. That is not what OCO was
designed for.
I think it has become a valiant effort to put more money in, but the
reality is, we have to face up, as Senator McCain and I suggested in
our letter to the Budget Committee, and raise the baseline number for
the Department of Defense to a total--at least to a total that avoids
sequestration or beyond. That is a realistic way to do it, and revenue
is a way to pay for it. And I don't think the cuts should come out of
nondefense to fund defense. This is an issue--again, are you going to
shortchange Homeland Security? Are you going to shortchange other
agencies that are critical to the defense of the United States? Are you
going to shortchange the people of the United States? I do not think we
should.

[[Page S1838]]

I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is amendment No. 347.

Amendment No. 622

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside in order for me to call up amendment No. 622.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Burr], for himself,
Mr. King, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Warner, Mrs. Shaheen, and Ms.
Ayotte, proposes an amendment numbered 622.

Mr. BURR. 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
manageable Federal student loan repayment options)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO A
SIMPLIFIED INCOME-DRIVEN STUDENT LOAN REPAYMENT
OPTION.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a deficit-neutral
reserve fund amendment to the budget that will allow the chairman of
the Budget Committee to revise allocations to provide for a simplified
income-driven repayment program for Federal student loans.
This budget amendment is offered with the hope that it would allow
for legislation similar to the Repay Act, which I introduced earlier in
this Congress with Senator King, Senator Alexander, Senator Warner,
Senator Shaheen, Senator Ayotte, Senator Rubio, Senator Capito, Senator
Collins, and Senator Carper.
I wish to spend a moment telling my colleagues what the Repay Act
would do.
It is very simple. It would streamline the numerous loan repayment
programs into two easily understood options for those who take out
student loans.
No. 1, it would create a fixed repayment program similar to the
current law's 10-year standard repayment.
No. 2, it would create a new simplified income-driven repayment
program that consolidates numerous income-based programs into one
program.
As we know today, students who go to college have to take out a
number of different loans. It is confusing in the system to know
exactly what that repayment system looks like--especially for somebody
who is trying to determine their job opportunities and the income they
need to meet their debt. This allows consolidation and simplification
so that if students understand exactly what their exposure is almost
from the very beginning, they would be left with a simple set of
choices upon graduation. Do I choose a fixed payment plan that would
pay off my loans in a straight 10 years? Or do I take the simplified
income-driven repayment plan, pay a little longer, and have the
remaining loan balance forgiven after 20 or 25 years, depending upon
whether it is undergraduate or graduate loans?
Now, this is important for a few reasons, which I will illustrate
from the quotes that have been made by many associations and financial
aid administrators who endorsed the Repay Act.
They say, No. 1: ``Consolidating the various federal income-based
programs into a single plan will help borrowers understand the benefits
and protections inherent in our federal student loan system . . .''
No. 2:

Despite many protections in [existing] repayment plans, a
frustrating number of student loan borrowers continue to
default. This is due in part to the fact that the options
require borrowers to take proactive and cumbersome steps to
enroll.

And, No. 3: ``This proposal to collapse the different plans into one
single income-based repayment plan should help ease the enrollment
process for borrowers.''
Not only does it sort out the repayment obligations that a student
has, it makes the enrollment easier. And this comes from the
individuals who are responsible for the implementation of these
programs.
Those quotes are from associations representing financial aid
administrators across the country. They are people who are on the
frontlines of helping students as they prepare for payment after
college. We should listen to them, and I say that strongly to my
colleagues. We should listen to them.
The other benefits of this legislation is that students will know,
prior to entering college, based on the amount that they borrow, what
options will be available to them once they graduate from college. I
know that seems like common sense to a lot of folks, but if you haven't
been through the student loan process today, then you don't realize
they don't have that clarity today--as they enter college--that this
will allow them to have.
This will promote better consumer behavior. It will lessen the chance
students default based upon the confusion of the viable options that
they have available to them.
Now, I would think, from policymakers, our intent would always be,
No. 1: Does the plan fit the need of the individuals to whom it is
targeted? Clearly the student loan program does, but, No. 2: Have we
done this in a way that is simple, understandable, and workable?
If we can't answer that question, and we don't check that box, the
likelihood is that the net result is that we have defaults, individuals
who don't live up to repaying their obligation. When a student
graduates, they face up to 12 repayment options available to them, all
with some overlapping purpose or benefit and with great complexity in
how you actually sign up for the options.
Again, with the Repay Act, there are two options: 10 years straight
repayment or a repayment that is structured based on what your income
is.
Senator King and I think the Repay Act makes for good policy, but we
think it makes for bad policy to have 12 cumbersome options that
overlap in some cases.
Based on some preliminary scores from CBO and estimates from
President Obama--since he has proposed much of what we do in the Repay
Act--we believe this legislation will save in the area of $4 billion
over the next 10 years and $1 billion to $2 billion over the next 5
years. That is up to $6 billion in savings in the student loan program
that we could pump back into additional loan value for students in the
future.
Now, unlike other options we have, which we will be voting on today,
that cost money--and pay for it by raising taxes--we save money by
making our program more efficient and better suited for students'
needs.
I say this to my colleagues who might be asking: How do I vote? I
have to tell you: You have to wait to have a comparison bill. There
will be one.
I want you to ask yourselves: Which one saves $4 billion, and which
one costs more money? Which one uses the allocations that are currently
there, and which one raises taxes to put in place a new plan?
This amendment and the Repay Act is bipartisan--overwhelmingly so. If
the bipartisan list of cosponsors to the Repay Act isn't enough, many
of the recommendations that are formed in this legislation came from
the President's very own budget.
This legislation also has the support of the Education Finance
Council, the American Council on Education, the National Association of
Student Financial Aid Administrators, as well as the University of
North Carolina System, which is important to me, since I represent
North Carolina.
In short, this amendment represents legislation that, No. 1, is
bipartisan; No. 2, saves money; No. 3, is based on the ideas and
proposals of the President; and, No. 4, has the support of the

[[Page S1839]]

financial aid industry, which is responsible for the success of student
loan programs.
Success means easy enrollment. Success means repayment of the
outstanding debt.
I urge my colleagues, when given the opportunity, to vote for
Amendment No. 622, a bipartisan-sponsored initiative.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to notify me when 6 minutes
are consumed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be so notified.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, last week the Senate Budget Committee gave
a green light to the Republican budget. A caution light, a yellow
light, was more in order. It calls for $4.7 trillion in nondefense
spending cuts over the next 10 years and no increases in revenue. Where
would those cuts come from? They would be piled on the backs of the
middle class, the elderly, and children.
They would cut the earned-income tax credit, slash Medicare and
Medicaid, child care, Head Start, education, public safety, and law
enforcement.
And--just for good measure--the Republican budget rolls back reforms
on Wall Street--and on and on. All this and more is to pay for lower
taxes for millionaires and billionaires.
When I first came to the Senate, our economy was in a free fall. We
were losing 20,000 jobs a day, every day. Thousands of jobs were gone.
Our financial system was crashing. Deficits were at historic highs.
That was 6 years ago. It has been a long road back. We asked the
wealthy to pay their fair share. We passed long-needed reforms to Wall
Street. We have seen 12 million more private sector jobs, the deficit
cut in half, and Wall Street at historic highs. Profits are up;
unemployment and deficits are down.
That is the story, but it isn't over. We are not done yet. Not
everyone has found solid ground.
My State still faces great challenges. Many New Mexicans are still
struggling, still pulling out of the worst recession in 75 years. How
do we go forward? How do we build on the progress we have made?
Those are the questions the voters elected us to solve. The short
answer is we have to work together. We have to get past the shutdowns
and the showdowns. Politics is the art of standing your ground but also
finding common ground.
That is why the Republican budget is so troubling. It doesn't start a
conversation. It doesn't reach across the aisle.
This budget is bad for working families, bad for the middle class,
bad for our economy. It makes a U-turn right back to failed policies of
the past. This budget says no to the middle class, no to the most
vulnerable, and no to the critical investments we know we need--but yes
to lower taxes for hedge funds. It is Robin Hood in reverse, and it
will hurt so many people who have suffered so much for so long.
This is the wrong way to go at the worst possible time, because--make
no mistake about it--this budget is one big yes for those at the top
and one big no for everybody else.
In my State, one in three children is in poverty. For Native American
children, it is even higher. It is 44 percent. One in five children
goes to bed hungry. Their parents can't find adequate child care. They
can't get quality medical care when they need it. They lack access to
safe housing and clean water.
This just isn't the case in New Mexico. We see it across the Nation.
Children and families are falling behind. This has to change. The
future--not only for our children but for our economy--depends on
changing it. We need to be doing more, but the Republican budget does
less.
It would cut programs for low-income children, seniors, and families
by up to $660 billion over 10 years, including SNAP and child nutrition
programs.
Healthy kids are an investment in our future economy. We need renewed
commitment--not draconian cuts--to the programs that help children
reach their full potential. That means infant and toddler care,
preschool, and home-visiting programs. We know that they work and they
can help in a big way.
A recent White House report tells the story. These programs make a
difference, get results and save money--more than $8 for every $1
invested.
That is why I introduced the Saving Our Next Generation Act, or SONG
Act. We should fully pay for what works. That is why I am a cosponsor
of the PRE-K Act to expand high-quality, early learning programs for
children from birth to age 5.
Children should be our priority. They should not take a back seat to
billionaires and neither should the elderly, who depend on Medicare,
not a voucher program.
The Republican budget cuts $2.5 trillion from health care for low-
and moderate-income people.
Repealing the Affordable Care Act, block-granting Medicaid--seniors
would pay more for prescription drugs and more for preventive services.
Crucial support for nursing care and home health care would be slashed.
We have a lot to do to get America's economy back on track. The
Republican budget--at every turn--fails to do it. A budget isn't just
numbers. It is about choices, and it is about priorities.
That means investing in infrastructure. We have to upgrade our roads
and manage our water resources. Federal dollars are almost half of New
Mexico's total transportation budget and 70 percent of funding for our
highways and bridges.
It means making sure we have an educated workforce--not cutting Pell
grants by 30 percent.
It means full funding for the PILT program--to help communities pay
for law enforcement, schools, and other services folks depend on.
It means making sure our national labs and our military bases have
the resources they need.
All of this makes a difference for the people of my State. It makes a
difference for hardworking families. It makes a difference for the
future of our country.
These should be our priorities, including doing more for small
businesses. They are the engine of our economy. They create most new
jobs. They need a fair tax policy--because they pay their fair share--
and don't have an army of lawyers working to find tax loopholes.
We cannot ask Main Street to keep sacrificing while we fail to close
a single tax loophole on Wall Street.
We need a tax system that supports the middle class--not corporations
sending jobs overseas. Our economy is recovering, but the benefit needs
to go to all Americans, not just those at the top.
These are the choices we should be making. These are the choices the
Republican budget fails to make.
We need to invest in the programs that help all Americans get ahead--
and strengthen our economy--so that every hardworking American has the
opportunity to build a better future.
I hope we can work together and find common ground with a budget that
makes sense, with a fair tax policy, and with smart investments. We
need to look to the future--and move forward.
Now is not the time to return to the failed policies of the past.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 6 minutes.
Mr. UDALL. I thank the Presiding Officer.
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. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 2
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 652

(Purpose: To make college more affordable for middle-class families by
allowing borrowers with outstanding Federal and private student loans
to refinance at the equivalent interest rates that were offered to
Federal student loan borrowers during the 2013-2014 school year and to
fully offset the cost of such a program by requiring millionaires to
pay at least a 30 percent effective Federal tax rate)

Mr. REED. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Warren, I ask unanimous
consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up her amendment
No. 652.

[[Page S1840]]

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 Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for Ms. Warren,
for herself, Mr. Franken, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Reed, Mrs. Boxer,
Mrs. Murray, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Stabenow, Mr.
Sanders, Mr. Brown, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Udall, Mrs. Shaheen,
Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Blumenthal, Ms. Baldwin,
Mr. Murphy, Mr. Markey, and Mr. Peters, proposes an amendment
numbered 652.

Mr. REED. 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. REED. Mr. President, 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. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized
for up to 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
resume consideration of S. Con. Res. 11 following the joint meeting;
that the time until 12:15 p.m. today be equally divided between the
managers or their designees; and that at 12:15 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: Burr No. 622,
Warren No. 652.
I further ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes equally
divided between the managers or their designees prior to each vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ISAKSON. For the information of all Senators, there will be up to
two rollcall votes at 12:15 p.m. today.

____________________