Congressional Record, Volume 161 Issue 51 (Thursday, March 26, 2015)

[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 51 (Thursday, March 26, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1960-S2008]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2016

The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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:

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.
Moran amendment No. 356, to establish a deficit-neutral
reserve fund relating to providing health care to veterans
who reside more than 40 miles driving distance from the
closest medical facility of the Department of Veterans
Affairs that provides the care sought by the veteran.
Roberts/Flake amendment No. 352, to establish a deficit-
neutral reserve fund relating to Federal employee performance
awards.
Roberts amendment No. 462, to establish a deficit-neutral
reserve fund relating to over-the-counter medications.
Vitter amendment No. 515, to establish a spending-neutral
reserve fund relating to requiring the Federal Government to
allow states to opt out of Common Core without penalty.
Vitter amendment No. 811, to establish a deficit-neutral
reserve fund relating to ending Washington's illegal
exemption from Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Gardner amendment No. 443, to establish a deficit-neutral
reserve fund relating to protecting privately held water
rights and permits.
Coats/Warner amendment No. 595, to establish a deficit-
neutral reserve fund to improve cybersecurity.
Coats amendment No. 368, to establish a deficit-neutral
reserve fund relating to providing States the Medicaid
flexibility they need to implement innovative reforms to
improve care and enhance access for our Nation's most
vulnerable.
Daines amendment No. 465, to establish a deficit-neutral
reserve fund relating to Second Amendment rights.
Daines amendment No. 387, to establish a deficit-neutral
reserve fund relating to postal reform.
Wyden/Crapo amendment No. 434, to provide for an adjustment
to committee allocations for wildfire suppression funding.
Paul amendment No. 940, to increase new budget authority
for fiscal years 2016 and 2017 and modify outlays for fiscal
years 2016 through 2022 for National Defense (budget function
050) with offsets.
Sanders (for Murray/Alexander) amendment No. 697, to
establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund for legislation that
reforms and strengthens elementary and secondary education.
Sanders (for Murray) amendment No. 798, to establish a
deficit-neutral reserve fund for legislation to allow
Americans to earn paid sick time.
Sanders (for Cantwell) amendment No. 800, to establish a
deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to a comprehensive
approach to crude-by-rail safety.
Sanders (for Murray) amendment No. 812, to establish a
deficit-neutral reserve fund to provide women with affordable
access to comprehensive health care, including preventative
services (such as contraception and breast cancer
screenings), improve maternal health, and ensure that a woman
has

[[Page S1961]]

the same benefits and services no matter what part of the
United States she lives in, all of which is critical to
improving the health and well-being of women, children, their
families, and society as a whole, and is an essential part of
a woman's economic security and opportunity.
Sanders (for Murray) amendment No. 951, to establish and
fund a new Federal-State partnership to expand access to
high-quality preschool programs for children from low- and
moderate-income families, offset with revenue from closing
loopholes.
Sanders (for Durbin/Coons) amendment No. 345, to establish
a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to increasing funding
for Federal investments in biomedical and basic scientific
research.
Sanders (for Durbin) amendment No. 817, to establish a
deficit-neutral reserve fund to provide tax benefits to
patriot employers that invest in American jobs and provide
fair pay and benefits to workers and to eliminate tax
benefits for corporations that ship jobs or profits overseas.
McCain/Flake amendment No. 360, to establish a deficit-
neutral reserve fund relating to deterring the migration of
unaccompanied children from El Salvador, Guatemala, and
Honduras.
Wyden/Bennet amendment No. 708, to establish a deficit-
neutral reserve fund relating to simplifying and expanding
tax incentives for higher education to boost student
attendance and completion.
Wyden amendment No. 791, to strike reconciliation
instructions to the Committees on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions and Finance and require regular order.
Wyden amendment No. 870, to establish a deficit-neutral
reserve fund relating to extending tax provisions expiring in
2013 or 2014 for 2 years, such as those contained in the
EXPIRE Act of 2014.
Heller amendment No. 453, to establish a spending-neutral
reserve fund relating to ensuring that the Secretary of
Transportation prioritizes the construction of projects that
are of national and regional significance and projects in
high priority corridors on the National Highway System, which
will improve the safe, secure, and efficient movement of
people and goods through the United States and facilitate
economic development and create jobs in the United States.
Heller amendment No. 452, to establish a spending-neutral
reserve fund relating to ensuring that the Secretary of the
Interior enters into candidate conservation agreements with
each of the relevant 11 Western States before the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service makes a listing
determination on the greater sage-grouse under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973.
Heller amendment No. 457, to establish a deficit-neutral
reserve fund relating to prohibition of Veterans Benefits
Administration executive bonuses until the backlog of
disability claims for veterans is eliminated.
Heller amendment No. 456, to establish a deficit-neutral
reserve fund relating to ensuring that medical facilities of
the Department of Veterans Affairs meet the privacy, dignity,
and safety needs of women veterans.
Coons/Bennet amendment No. 343, to establish a deficit-
neutral reserve fund relating to preserving mandatory
appropriations for agricultural conservation programs.
Coons amendment No. 391, to establish a deficit-neutral
reserve fund relating to the expansion of access to the
income tax credit for employee health insurance expenses of
small employers.
Coons/Rubio amendment No. 392, to establish a deficit-
neutral reserve fund relating to promoting the use of college
savings accounts while students are in elementary school and
secondary school.
Coons amendment No. 394, to establish a deficit-neutral
reserve fund relating to special treatment of the income tax
credit for research expenditures for startup companies.
Coons amendment No. 802, to offset the costs of the war
against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
Baldwin amendment No. 432, to provide additional resources
to create the opportunity for more Americans to obtain a
higher education and advanced job skills by supporting two
free years of community college paid for by raising revenue
through requiring millionaires and billionaires to pay their
fair share.
Baldwin amendment No. 436, to preserve the point of order
against the reconciliation legislation that would increase
the deficit or reduce a surplus.
Manchin amendment No. 694, to establish a deficit-neutral
reserve fund relating to investing in advanced fossil energy
technology research and development.
Manchin amendment No. 578, to establish a deficit-neutral
reserve fund relating to addressing methamphetamine abuse in
the United States.
Whitehouse amendment No. 700, to ensure high-income earners
pay a fair share in taxes and to use the revenue to invest in
repairing our Nation's bridges, coastal infrastructure, and
damage from wildfires.
Whitehouse/Udall amendment No. 867, to establish a deficit-
neutral reserve fund relating to making it more difficult for
corporations and billionaires to secretly influence elections
by making unlimited undisclosed campaign expenditures, and to
prevent such entities from evading campaign finance law,
including through making false statements to government
agencies.
Whitehouse amendment No. 895, to prohibit budget
resolutions that support cutting over $1,000,000,000,000 in
spending without identifying specific programmatic effects.
Casey amendment No. 632, to establish a deficit-neutral
reserve fund relating to providing reasonable accommodations
for pregnant workers.
Casey amendment No. 633, to establish a deficit-neutral
reserve fund relating to enhancing the child and dependent
care tax credit.
Merkley/Coons amendment No. 842, to establish a deficit-
neutral reserve fund relating to consumer financial
protection.
Merkley amendment No. 843, to establish a deficit-neutral
reserve fund relating to restoring reductions in the
Republican budget to the Stafford loan program that would
mandate that students currently in college pay interest on
their loans before they have received their education
benefits, to make college more affordable, to reduce the debt
burden of students, and to help graduates afford to pay back
student loans.
Merkley/Brown amendment No. 952, to establish a deficit-
neutral reserve fund relating to establishing a more level
playing field in trade agreements.
Merkley amendment No. 953, to save student financial aid
and reduce the student loan debt levels in the Republican
budget by 15 percent by eliminating new mandated interest
charged while students are still in school.
Blumenthal amendment No. 825, to expand the deficit-neutral
reserve fund for veterans and servicemembers.
Cassidy amendment No. 341, to establish a spending-neutral
reserve fund relating to the promotion of United States
offshore energy production.
Cassidy amendment No. 539, to establish a deficit-neutral
reserve fund relating to improving Medicaid based on
successful and bipartisan State demonstration projects.
Cassidy amendment No. 795, to establish a spending-neutral
reserve fund relating to authorizing Federal permitting for
manufacturing and energy construction projects relating to
national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard
for ozone lower than a certain existing standard.
Coons (for Bennet) amendment No. 715, to create clean
energy jobs through predictable and fair incentives for
renewable energy.
Murkowski (for Thune) amendment No. 607, to establish a
deficit-neutral reserve fund to allow for the permanent
elimination of the Federal estate tax.
Murkowski (for Thune) amendment No. 743, to reduce funding
for the General Services Administration by $1,000,000 until
50 percent of counties in nonattainment for the 1997 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone
as of January 30, 2015, achieve the air quality standard set
forth in the 1997 NAAQS, and direct those funds to the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for the
purpose of helping municipalities reach attainment with the
2008 NAAQS for ground-level ozone, acknowledging that (1)
given limited State and Federal resources and the delay of
the Administrator in issuing to States implementation
guidance for the 2008 ground-level ozone NAAQS, priority
should be given to achieving the 2008 standard, (2) the
Administrator has not sufficiently implemented that standard,
(3) focusing by the Administrator on the most polluted areas
that are in nonattainment with that standard would benefit
public health, and (4) promulgating a lower standard at this
time would impose undue costs on the economy and workforce of
the United States.
Murkowski/Sullivan amendment No. 838, to establish a
spending-neutral reserve fund relating to the disposal of
certain Federal land.
Murkowski amendment No. 770, to establish a deficit-neutral
reserve fund relating to the construction of Arctic polar
icebreakers.
Gardner (for Ayotte) amendment No. 485, to establish a
deficit-neutral reserve fund to provide equity in the tax
treatment of public safety officer death benefits.
Gardner (for Ayotte) amendment No. 490, to establish a
deficit-neutral reserve fund to address the disproportionate
regulatory burdens on community bankers.
Gardner (for Ayotte) amendment No. 852, to establish a
deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to providing small
business regulatory relief and preventing duplicative
regulations for investment advisors.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, this has been an important week for the
Senate as we work to set spending goals for our Nation. Before this
year, the Senate has only been able to pass two budgets in the past 6
years. Now that Congress is under new management, we are on track to
pass a budget after only 3 months.
The reason we are working so hard is to restore the trust of the
American people, who want and deserve more effective and efficient
government. This week, as part of the Senate's regular order, we have
been debating and offering amendments and have actually voted more than
a dozen times on how best to set spending limits and make government
live within its means, including votes to protect property rights of
all Americans and to save Medicare.
The spending goals and limits we have set are why passing a budget is
so

[[Page S1962]]

important to our Nation. They let congressional policymakers who
actually allocate the dollars get to work by following our spending
limits. Without that, they are delayed.
We have had that situation for a number of years, in which the fiscal
year actually ends and we don't have the spending bills done. That is
what happens with government shutdowns. That is what happens with
extending its ability to operate without having a budget. That
shouldn't happen.
So we want to get a budget passed by April 15 so that the spending
committees can get busy looking at their areas of jurisdiction, their
specific areas of interest, to come up with the best policies possible
that have a total spending package that will keep government operating
and meeting its objectives as the people expect.
But today is the day for which we all have been waiting. Today the
Senate will begin voting on many amendments offered this week by way of
what is affectionately known as a vote-arama. We will start voting
early this afternoon, and we will continue until we are exhausted,
until we are done, until people think their amendments have been
covered sufficiently. That is the way we do it in the Senate.

The Senate debate on this balanced budget demonstrates that Congress
is doing its part to deliver a healthy economy for each and every
American. The important first steps we have taken this week will help
deliver a government that is more accountable, which is absolutely
essential for strong job growth and job creation. This budget will help
every American who wants to find a good-paying job and a fulfilling
career.
I am incredibly proud of my colleagues who are working together to
deliver real solutions, real results, and real progress for hard-
working taxpayers.
I find this a little bit stressful. I am an accountant. I have found
a way to escape some of that tension. I have been reading the Tax Code,
and it is time for us to reform the Tax Code. There are hundreds of
pages on minor decisions, on different ways of calculating it, and I am
excited that we are going to do that. One of the things both sides of
the aisle have talked about is speculation on tax reform. Tax reform
needs to be done in a bipartisan way. I know the chairman of the
Finance Committee and the ranking member on the Finance Committee have
already been working on it. We have subgroups set up to solve different
parts of the Tax Code, and I am confident we can do that. There are
general instructions in the budget bill that allow some latitude to the
Finance Committee in a number of different ways, and I am hoping we can
wind up with a simpler Tax Code, one that will not take care of my
frustrations in future years, but will ease the frustrations of the
American people as to taxes.
There has been a lot of speculation on where budget cuts are being
made. I know there is a lot of frustration on the other side. Our
budget sets limits for the different spending groups. It doesn't get
into the details. The people who know the details in those areas are on
the committees, and they can make better decisions than we as the
Budget Committee can make. I do point out frequently that part of my
discovery during this process was that there are 260 programs whose
authorizations have expired. That means the specific committees that
came up with the idea for these programs haven't looked at them for
some time, and that didn't stop us from going ahead and funding them
anyway. They have expired, but in some cases we are spending four times
as much as what was originally envisioned for that particular program.
Does it amount to much money? It amounts to $293 billion a year--$293
billion a year. If the committees do their work, there is a lot of
money available for the areas outside of defense.
Defense has its authorization done every year, so they are in a
different category from all of the rest of the Federal Government
programs. So if you are thinking there are a lot of hands tied on what
can be done, there is $293 billion out there that is being spent that
has expired and ought to be looked at. In businesses, they have to look
at their expenses every single year and see where they can cut in order
to continue the business. Around here one of those programs hasn't been
looked at since 1983.
So there is a lot of work for us to do. It is all included in the
budget. I hope we can finish the budget tonight and put everybody to
work on these extra tasks.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I heard my friend from Wyoming say he is
relieving his stress over the budget by reading the Tax Code. In my
religion, when you go to confession, you are given a penance for your
sins. I cannot think of a more awesome penance than reading the Tax
Code. I certainly hope it gives my friend from Wyoming a good frame of
mind as he attacks this vote-arama.
I am going to be brief because our ranking member on the budget has
arrived on the floor, but I do want to say this: Budgets make choices,
and there are one or two choices--certainly more than one or two but
one or two that I would like to highlight that I think are worrisome.
The Republican budget eliminates health insurance for 27 million
Americans. That is 9 percent of people in America who would lose their
health insurance protection because of the Republican budget. Part of
it is the passionate refusal of the Republicans to accept the
Affordable Care Act, which now in itself protects 15 to 16 million
Americans. We have said to them, if you don't like the Affordable Care
Act, give us an alternative, and they have yet to do so--and, frankly,
because it is fairly difficult, as it was passing this bill. But to
take health insurance away from 27 million Americans and say that is
going to make a better life for working families? No, it will not. It
will make a bigger challenge for these families which will be extremely
difficult.
Secondly, I am worried and I think other Members from both sides of
the aisle share concerns about sequestration cuts when it comes to
areas such as biomedical research. How in the world can we justify
cutting research from the National Institutes of Health to find cures
for diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes--the list goes on.
If we believe we are making a better America by cutting back research
and innovation, particularly biomedical research, it is extremely
shortsighted. When I take a look at the 200 or so pending amendments on
budget resolution, it looks like there are 10 of them--including one I
am going to offer--relative to medical research. Democrats and
Republicans are saying spare this area of Federal spending. I would
like to propose that all of us who share this goal on both sides of the
aisle join in an effort to make sure this is treated differently in our
budget. It shouldn't be subject to mindless and deep cuts in biomedical
research, which will deny to a lot of suffering people the hope they
need and deny cures that will not only save lives but save dramatic
amounts of money.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, when we look at budgets, we look
essentially at two things. First off, we look at what the budget
actually does, because it is a set of priorities, and we look at what
the budget does not do.
Any sensible group of people, whether it is a family, whether it is
local government, State government, whether it is a business--people
sit around the table and say, OK, these are our needs, this is what we
have to address or this is no longer relevant or this is wasteful and
we have to get rid of it. That is what a budget process is about.
When you examine the Republican budget, it almost seems they turn
that equation upside down and they do everything we should not be doing
and they don't do what we should be doing. The overall reality of
America that most people understand is the middle class of this country
for the last 40 years has been shrinking. Yes, we are in a lot better
shape today than we were when President Bush left office, but real
unemployment is 11 percent. We have the highest rate of childhood
poverty in the industrialized world. Despite the modest gains to the
Affordable Care Act, 35 million Americans still have no health
insurance. Millions of families--whether it is in Nevada or Vermont--
are wondering how in God's name they are going to be able to send their
kids to college when school is so expensive. What happens to those

[[Page S1963]]

young people when they leave school deeply in debt?
People are working in Vermont, in Nevada, in Wyoming for horrendously
low wages because we have a minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, and people
are wondering why it is that they work 40 hours a week and still have
to go to the emergency food shelf to put food on the table. Those are
some of the issues the American people are talking about and they are
thinking about, and they wonder, How does it happen that while they are
working longer hours for low wages, the people on top and the large
profitable corporations are doing phenomenally well? How does it happen
that in the last 2 years, 14 of the wealthiest people in this country
have seen a $157 billion increase in their wealth? How does it happen
that one family, the Walton family, owns more wealth than the bottom 40
percent of the American people? How does it happen that 99 percent of
all new income generated in America since the Wall Street crash goes to
the top 1 percent?
Those are the issues the American people are wondering about. Why,
with an increase in productivity, am I working longer hours for lower
wages? Why, if I am a woman worker, do I make 78 cents on the dollar
compared to a male worker? Those are the questions.
Then you look at the Republican budget. The Republican budget does
nothing to address the real problems except to make them worse. One of
the problems, to be very frank, and works to the Republicans'
advantage--and I have to say this, frankly--the Republican budget is so
outrageous that when we explain it, people don't believe what we are
saying. Senator Durbin made the point--no debate here--if I am wrong,
somebody jump up and correct me. The Republican budget eliminates the
Affordable Care Act, right? It does that, and 16 million Americans lose
their health insurance--16 million people have no health insurance. But
that is not enough. The Republican budget cuts over $400 billion in
Medicaid. That is another 11 million people losing their health
insurance--16 plus 11 is 27 million people losing health insurance.
Does anybody in America think that makes any sense at all? These are
men, women, children. You cut Medicaid and you throw people off. These
are pregnant women who need to go to the doctor to make sure the baby
they are carrying is healthy or little babies who are born. That is
what they do.
But meanwhile, here is something they do not do. When they get up
there and say this budget does not include any tax increases, they are
right. I can see that. They are right. But what they are really saying
is: We will not--we will never ask the billionaires in this country to
pay a nickel more in taxes. We will not ask the one out of four major
corporations that pay nothing in taxes to start paying their fair share
of taxes. We will make it harder for kids to go to college, we will
throw people off of health insurance, but we will not ask the rich and
the powerful to pay more in taxes.
That is what this budget debate is about, and I hope the American
people pay attention to that.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.

Amendment No. 689

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 689.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Portman] proposes an amendment
numbered 689.

Mr. PORTMAN. 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 improve the dynamic scoring provision)

On page 104, line 16, after ``shall provide'' insert ``, in
addition to the estimate of budgetary effects without
macroeconomic effects, an estimate of the budgetary effects
from changes in economic output, employment, capital stock,
interest rates, and other macroeconomic variables resulting
from the major legislation and''

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, we had an energetic discussion this
morning about the budget that is before us. The amendment I am going to
offer will help us have a better process to get to pro-growth tax
reform to actually get this economy growing.
My colleague, Senator Sanders, talked about the fact that real
unemployment is far higher than the numbers that are officially
reported. I agree with him on that. I agree with him that the economy
is not out of the woods, and I agree with him that a lot of people are
left behind and will continue to be until we get this economy growing
the way you normally see an economy grow during a recovery. It is the
weakest economic recovery, economists tell us, since the Great
Depression; that is, measured in terms of economic growth, GDP, and in
terms of job growth.
So what this budget does is it puts in place the process for us to
actually get pro-growth on policies: yes, on health care; yes, on
taxes, on regulations, and so on to be able to move the economy
forward. It was President John F. Kennedy who said that ``a rising tide
lifts all boats.'' Now, some people get stuck on the shoals and we need
to take care of them too. That is why this budget also has a strong
safety net necessary to get economic growth--not sufficient but
necessary. That is what this budget does.
By the way, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office--not the
Republicans, not I--the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office looks
at this budget and says, you know what. By balancing the budget in 10
years--balancing the budget--therefore, reducing the amount of deficits
and the huge debt overhang--a record level of debt we have in our
country right now--that will result in more economic growth and more
jobs. That is what the Congressional Budget Office said. So this notion
that somehow by actually dealing with the debt and deficit and by
actually having a balanced budget is bad for the economy--it is just
the opposite. This is a first but incredibly important step to getting
this economy back on track and to bringing back these jobs.
By the way, this is about not just economic growth but about better
jobs, about rising wages, and it is about getting to a situation where
instead of having wages going down--which is what has been happening
over the last 6 years--we can actually see wages go up. On average,
wages have gone down about 8 percent. So for working families in Ohio
and around this country, we have seen wages go down 8 percent. By the
way, half of that reduction in wages came during the so-called
recovery. So something is not working. Part of what is not working is
running these hundreds of billions of dollars of deficit every year and
spending more than this place takes in every year and building up these
levels of debt that are unprecedented--over $18 trillion.
We did vote on the President's budget yesterday. It is the only
alternative we have to be able to compare what this side of the aisle
wants to do and what the other side of the aisle wants to do. In the
budget the President put out, there was an $8 trillion increase--
increase--in the debt over the next 10 years. That is adding to the
over $7 trillion of debt that has been added over the last 6 years
under the Obama administration. That may be why not a lot of people
voted for the budget that the President presented. In fact, only one
person did--1 out of 100. The reason is, it adds so much more debt and
so much more in annual deficits that it actually puts that wet blanket
over the economy and doesn't enable us to see the economic growth we
want.
So one element of growth, as the chairman of the Budget Committee
talked about this morning, is tax reform. I think everybody
acknowledges that our Tax Code is antiquated. It is out of date. It is
inefficient. It does not let us compete around the world. So workers in
Ohio are competing with one hand tied behind their backs because our
Tax Code is so inefficient that it does not let them compete
effectively around the world.
So let's reform the Tax Code. Everybody who looks at it--economists
right, left, or center--agrees the Tax Code does not work. They have
different ideas on how to fix it, but they all say: if you could fix
this Tax Code, you would see more growth.
By the way, you would see not just more jobs but better jobs. If you
look

[[Page S1964]]

at the issue of business tax reform--there is actually a lot of
similarity between what the administration is talking about and what
Members of Congress on my side of the aisle are talking about. The
economic analysis there is that the No. 1 impact of having the highest
business tax rate in all the developed world is on wages and benefits.
The No. 1 beneficiary will be workers because they are going to see
their wages go up and they are going to see their benefits go up. These
are the middle-class jobs we want to create in this country.
So let's have this tax reform. Let's make sure it is pro-growth.
Now back to this amendment and why it is so important to that. This
is an amendment that says: Let's require the Joint Committee on
Taxation--that is the group who handles scoring those tax reform
proposals--to give us the right analysis so we can come up with pro-
job, pro-growth tax reform that will actually enable us to bring back
these good middle-class jobs. That is what this amendment says. It
requires them to provide us what is called macroeconomic scoring.
Right now, unbelievably, when you provide a tax reform proposal on
the floor of the Senate, what you get back is just a static score that
has no relationship to what the impact will be on the economy. It
assumes there will be zero impact on the economy. Now, nobody believes
that. Everyone knows tax changes will have some impact on the economy--
good, bad, indifferent--yet we do not have that information to be able
to ensure that we are writing the right tax reform to get to the result
we all want. It seems absurd, I know, but that is the current
situation.
What this amendment says is, let's have a requirement that the Joint
Committee on Taxation provide to the Senate a dynamic score, a
macroeconomic score. By the way, they already do it. They already have
a model to do it. They just do not provide it to us. Would there be a
so-called static score, too, that shows no economic changes? Yes, you
would have that too. I cannot imagine that any Member of this body,
Republican or Democrat, would not want to have that information, would
not want to know what the actual impact is on the economy.
Think about this: If McDonald's raises the price of its Big Mac to
$10 or $12, what is going to happen? Under a static score, it would
say: McDonald's will get more revenue. We know what will happen. We
will not go to McDonald's and our kids will not go to McDonald's
because it is too expensive. The revenue will go down.
We need to have that kind of commonsense analysis here on the floor
of the Senate so we can, indeed, put forward tax reform that makes
sense for the economy and makes sense to the American people and helps
to do precisely what Senator Sanders talks about, which is to get that
unemployment number down and provide better jobs, higher paying jobs.
If we do not do that, we are letting down the people we are elected to
represent.
I hope this amendment No. 689 is supported by Democrats and
Republicans alike as a commonsense approach to this. Let's apply
macroeconomic analysis to anything that is a tax reform proposal over
$15 billion. That is the right level. The House has similar analysis in
their legislation, so this could actually end up being something on
which the House and Senate can agree.
Let's ensure that we have the information we need to write the right
kind of legislation to get this economy moving and to deal with both
sides of the coin. One, spending restraint--and we all know that has to
happen--and two, growth, get this economy moving. If we do that, we
will see more gross revenues and be able to make this objective we have
set out in this budget, which is to actually, for the American people,
who cannot understand why we cannot do it, balance this budget. They
have to balance their budgets. We have to in our families. We have to
in our businesses. We have to in our States. We ought to do it here in
the Congress as well.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). The Senator from West Virginia.

Amendments Nos. 415 and 416 En Bloc

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment to call up amendments Nos. 415 and 416 en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are called up en bloc.
The amendments are as follows:

Amendment No. 415

(Purpose: To establish a spending-neutral reserve fund relating to a
requirement that any new environmental agreement signed by the United
States with any foreign country or countries not result in serious harm
to the economy of the United States)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. SPENDING-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO A
REQUIREMENT THAT ANY NEW ENVIRONMENTAL
AGREEMENT SIGNED WITH ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY NOT
RESULT IN SERIOUS HARM TO THE ECONOMY OF THE
UNITED STATES.

Amendment No. 416

(Purpose: To establish a spending-neutral reserve fund relating to
protecting the reliability of the electricity grid)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. SPENDING-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
PROTECTING THE RELIABILITY OF THE ELECTRICITY
GRID.

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I wish to briefly address these two
amendments. The first amendment simply says that the United States
should not sign an international environmental agreement that would do
serious harm to our own economy. That commonsense principle passed the
Senate by a vote of 95 to 0 in 1997.
Last year, the administration announced the climate agreement with
China. That agreement requires significant short-term carbon emission
reductions here in the United States, but China is allowed to continue
increasing its carbon emissions until 2030. That disparity could place
the United States at a significant economic disadvantage. In November,
global talks began in Paris on a broader international agreement.
My amendment simply states what every Senator who voted in 1997 said:
No agreement should cause serious harm to the American economy.
My second amendment protects the reliability of our electricity grid.
North American Electric Reliability Corporation released a report that
found that the targets set forward in the President's Clean Power Plan
will be difficult if not impossible to achieve without degrading the
reliability of the grid.
We all want to have our lights turn on and our heat and air-
conditioning work. This is in peril. My amendment simply makes sure
families and businesses have the reliable electricity they expect by
blocking the EPA from finalizing, proposing, or issuing any regulation
that would reduce the reliability of the electricity grid.
I ask my colleagues to support these amendments.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

Amendment No. 437

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment and call up Peters amendment No. 437.

[[Page S1965]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Peters] proposes an
amendment numbered 437.

Mr. PETERS. 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
enhancing and improving the United States Patent and Trademark Office
in order to reduce the patent application backlog)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO ENHANCING
AND IMPROVING THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND
TRADEMARK OFFICE IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE
APPLICATION BACKLOG.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, the amendment that I have just called up
that is pending before the Senate deals with what I think is a critical
issue for this country; that is, making sure we can continue to move
forward with innovation to grow the economy.
There certainly are many debates that are going to be held as to how
we get the productivity in this country to increase, how we create more
middle-class jobs and grow the economy from the top to the bottom. But
I think there is broad consensus that what has really driven our
economy--really through the centuries but certainly most recently in
the United States--has been innovation. It is about innovation,
creating the next big thing, the big products that transform people's
lives. In order to do that, companies that come up with these ideas
need to have patent protection so that the effort they put into that
product, the money they put into that product, they are able to protect
as they market that product and get a return on their investments.
Unfortunately, however, the backlog of patent applications at the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office has become completely unacceptable.
The America Invents Act made a number of very important changes to
our patent system that targeted the reducing of the backlog and driving
innovation. At the time that act was passed, there were more than
700,000 patent applications at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Those applications had an average review time of 3 years or longer
before the applications were granted patent protection. Three years is
simply an unacceptable amount of time to wait as these inventors who
are trying to get their patent protections--they have to wait several
years before they can bring those products to the market and have the
protections of patents.
What makes it even more unacceptable is that these folks who are
applying for these patents pay a user fee. They pay a fee in order to
have this work done. Yet, with sequestration and other types of budget
maneuvering, the patent office actually cannot fully utilize the fees
that are generated by the people who are paying these fees. So, in a
sense, this is an innovation tax. People who are innovating pay a tax
while they are innovating, when what we should be doing is accelerating
their ability to bring these products to market, create jobs, and
advance the economy.
The backlog now, after the passage of the act, still stands at
600,000, with an average review time of 2.3 years. So we have made some
progress, but we still have a long way to go.
So in order to reduce the patent application backlog, the U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office needs the ability to access all of the fees it
receives in order to hire additional examiners and administrative
patent judges. That is what this amendment before us does--it gives the
patent office the resources it needs in order to do its job
effectively. The end result is a stronger American economy. I urge my
colleagues to adopt this amendment.

Amendment No. 521

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be
set aside and call up Peters amendment No. 521.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Peters] proposes an
amendment numbered 521.

Mr. PETERS. 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
investing in science, technology, and basic research in the United
States)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO INVESTING
IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND BASIC RESEARCH IN
THE UNITED STATES.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, this amendment is similar to the previous
amendment in that it focuses on innovation. It focuses on what this
country does best, which is create new products and advance the
knowledge with scientific discoveries and new inventions.
This amendment, however, deals specifically with scientific discovery
and technological breakthroughs that drive our economy. We have known
throughout human history that the drivers of that have been the big
breakthroughs, whether it is the cotton gin or the internal combustion
engine or the railroads. These have been inventions that have
transformed the entire planet.
We need to continue to have those innovations, but in order to do
that, we need to invest in basic scientific research. Investments in
basic research have resulted in countless innovations that improve our
day-to-day lives and support the Nation's overall productivity and
competitiveness.
The Federal Government has long played a crucial role. This has
always been, in the past, a very bipartisan issue, that the Federal
Government invest in this basic, cutting-edge research and development.
However, we have seen a very I think disturbing trend over the last few
decades as R&D spending has fallen. The amount of money which the
Federal Government puts into basic scientific research now is less than
1 percent of GDP. This is simply unacceptable. We have to look at basic
scientific research as the seed corn for our economy. We need to invest
in seed corn so we can harvest the rewards of that investment.
This amendment would strengthen Congress's ongoing commitment to
responsibly increasing investments in science, technology, and basic
research and help ensure U.S. science and technology leadership in an
increasingly competitive world.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment to show our
commitment to investing in basic scientific research so we can continue
to make the U.S. economy the strongest in the world.

Amendment No. 639

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be
set aside and call up Peters amendment No. 639.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Peters] proposes an
amendment numbered 639.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.

[[Page S1966]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
supporting trade and travel at ports of entry)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO SUPPORTING
TRADE AND TRAVEL AT PORTS OF ENTRY.

Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, this amendment deals with another critical
aspect of growing our economy. Certainly innovation and basic
scientific research are the real drivers of long-term economic growth,
but another very important aspect of that is international trade. The
United States has the best workers in the world. We have the best
entrepreneurs. We have the best innovators. We need to be in a position
that we can continue to promote trade across the world.
So I rise to offer an amendment that will support trade and travel
through our U.S. ports of entry. As we all know, trade and travel drive
economic development. In fact, they generate over $2 trillion in
economic impact and support nearly 15 million jobs nationwide. However,
it is unfortunate to say that many our busiest ports of entry are in
need of modernization in order to safely and efficiently process
travelers and goods.
I speak about this with firsthand experience. In Michigan, our
manufacturers and agricultural producers rely on efficient trade with
Canada, which is our Nation's largest export market, our top customer,
as well as our closest ally. However, existing infrastructure at our
ports of entry often does not allow for the most efficient processing
of trucks and cargo. We have two major crossings in Detroit--in
Windsor, Canada, as well as Port Huron in Sarnia. Both of those trade
areas need additional investment in their customs plazas to efficiently
handle the trade between our two countries.
Those investments are important investments in the future of this
country and important in order to make sure we continue to expand trade
and economic activity. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support
this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. First, Mr. President, I thank Senator Peters for the
amendments he just offered. We had a hearing in the Small Business and
Entrepreneurship Committee in regard to the patent issues. It is
clearly a huge concern by the innovators, the small business, biotech,
and high-tech firms. I thank the Senator very much for giving us an
opportunity to act on that matter.
Secondly, let me compliment the Senator on the research issues. I
took to the floor yesterday and talked about the budgets of the
National Institutes of Health and how critical that is, not only for
their direct mission, which is to find answers to diseases, but also to
provide the answers to building blocks for companies that do incredible
work.
I was at AstraZeneca in Frederick on Monday, where they do the
biologics manufacturing, and they depend very much on the NIH budget.
I thank the Senator for the amendments he offered. I know we will
have a chance to act on them a bit later.

Amendments Nos. 364, 367, 439, 440, 899, and 900 en bloc

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment to call up the following amendments en bloc: Cardin
amendments Nos. 364, 367, 439, 440, 899, and 900.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are called up en bloc.
The clerk will report the amendments by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] proposes amendments
numbered 364, 367, 439, 440, 899, and 900 en bloc.

The amendments are as follows:

Amendment No. 364

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
improving oral health care for children and pregnant women under
Medicaid)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO IMPROVING
ORAL HEALTH CARE FOR CHILDREN AND PREGNANT
WOMEN UNDER MEDICAID.

Amendment No. 367

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
providing a funding stream for a voter reinfranchisement initiative)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING PROVIDING A
FUNDING STREAM FOR A VOTER REINFRANCHISEMENT
INITIATIVE.

Amendment No. 439

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
mandating a higher threshold that the Small Business Administration may
guarantee, through the Surety Bond Guarantee Program, of the bonds that
small businesses are required to obtain so that they may be able to
better compete successfully for Federal Government contracts)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO INCREASING
THE GUARANTEE THRESHOLD FOR THE SURETY BOND
GUARANTEE PROGRAM.

Amendment No. 440

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
increasing the Family Funds limit of the Small Business Investment
Company Program from $225,000,000 to $350,000,000, as passed by the
Committee in 2013, which is zero subsidy and funded entirely through
fees paid by investors and businesses)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO RAISING
THE FAMILY OF FUNDS LIMIT OF THE SMALL BUSINESS
INVESTMENT COMPANY PROGRAM.

[[Page S1967]]

2016 through 2020 or the period of the total of fiscal years
2016 through 2025.

Amendment No. 899

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to the
importance of financial literacy education to allow individuals to make
informed and effective decisions with their financial resources)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO THE
IMPORTANCE OF FINANCIAL LITERACY EDUCATION TO
ALLOW INDIVIDUALS TO MAKE INFORMED AND
EFFECTIVE DECISIONS WITH THEIR FINANCIAL
RESOURCES.

Amendment No. 900

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to the
importance of civics and government education)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO THE
IMPORTANCE OF CIVICS AND GOVERNMENT EDUCATION.

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes to talk a
little bit about the amendments.
I see Senator Portman on the floor, and I want to talk about
amendment No. 899, which provides a deficit-neutral reserve fund for
financial literacy.
The two of us have been working for over a decade to increase the
amount of savings for Americans, particularly retirement savings. We
know that at early ages people need to understand the importance of
saving.
I offer this amendment, and Senator Portman has been very helpful to
me in developing this amendment. I hope we will be able to act on this
a little bit later.
Amendment No. 364 deals with oral health, which establishes a
deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to improving oral health care for
pregnant women and children under Medicaid. Let me point out to my
colleagues something they may not be aware of; that is, the oral health
of a pregnant woman very much impacts the baby. Therefore, it is
important pregnant women have attention to their oral health care
needs. It is transmitted to their babies.
I urge my colleagues to help us in supporting this effort. We have
taken major steps to improve pediatric dental care. This is another
step we can take by dealing with pregnant women.
With regard to amendment No. 367, which sets up the deficit-neutral
reserve fund to provide for voter reenfranchisement initiatives, once
again I think my colleagues would be surprised to learn there is an
estimated 5.85 million citizens who cannot vote as a result of criminal
convictions and nearly 4.4 million of those have already been released
from prison.
We have 4.4 million people living in our community whom we expect to
be productive citizens, and yet they have been disenfranchised from
voting.
Nationwide 1 in 13 African Americans of voting age have lost their
right to vote, a rate four times the national average. I think that
should give us all concern.
Latino citizens are also impacted because they are disproportionately
overrepresented in the criminal justice system.
States have vastly different approaches to people voting with
criminal convictions. This patchwork of State laws has caused confusion
among the election officials and the public, sometimes resulting in the
disenfranchisement of even eligible voters. So this amendment would
provide much needed information into the hands of citizens returning
from incarceration.
I thank my colleague Senator Paul for his work with regard to this
issue. The two of us are trying to find a way we can bring forward
together a workable way that can help many who have been released from
our prisons to have the right to vote and participate in our community.
With regard to two amendments I am offering, amendments Nos. 439 and
440, both are related to my work as the ranking Democrat on the Small
Business and Entrepreneurship Committee.
One would set up a deficit reserve fund to deal with surety bonds. We
have increased the limit of the surety bond by the SBA for small
companies, which is very important. This would help make that a more
permanent increase.
The small companies, if they try to get a surety bond, have to pledge
just about every one of their assets in order to get it. The SBA
program helps with that credit so they can get affordable surety bonds
without jeopardizing their ability to raise capital. This amendment
calls attention to that need where we can help small businesses in this
country.
I also set up the deficit-neutral reserve fund for family funds
within the small business investment company.
I thank Senator Risch. He has been working on this issue, and I have
been working with him on this issue. I think we will hopefully be able
to come together on legislation that will increase the opportunities
under the small business investment companies, which is, again, an
avenue for capital for small companies, the driving force for job
innovation in our community.
This amendment would allow us again to focus on that legislation,
which we hope to move through the Small Business and Entrepreneurship
Committee.
Lastly, I have offered a deficit-neutral reserve fund, amendment No.
900, concerning civic education.
I have taken the floor to point out that, yes, we need to stress
areas of excellence in the sciences, et cetera, in education, but let's
not forget civic education. The bedrock of our country's values are
based upon our civic system, and it is important that young people have
a full understanding of civic education.
This amendment would give us an opportunity, in this Congress, to
move forward in promoting civic education for our school system.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, first, I applaud my colleague from
Maryland for these constructive amendments. I am happy to be a
cosponsor of the financial literacy amendment, which enables all of our
constituents to be able to save and invest more, particularly with
regard to retirement savings for retirees.
The savings rate is low. Baby boomers are retiring without having
lifetime savings, and financial literacy is critical for them. It is
also critical for our young people to give them the opportunity to
start saving early with the power of compound interest and to be able
to make wise decisions for their future--whether it is for retirement,
whether it is for health care or whether it is for other purposes.
I have enjoyed working with my colleague Senator Cardin on this issue
over the years, and I am proud to cosponsor his amendment.

Amendment No. 681

I wish to call up another amendment this morning because it is very
important for all of us in this Chamber because all of us are affected
by it.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending
amendment to call up my amendment No. 681.
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 Ohio [Mr. Portman] proposes an amendment
numbered 681.

Mr. PORTMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S1968]]

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
demolishing vacant and abandoned homes)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
DEMOLISHING VACANT AND ABANDONED HOMES.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, this is a commonsense amendment that
calls for prioritizing the investments to tackle a very important issue
for our cities and towns across our country, especially those hardest
hit by the housing crisis.
Main Streets, unfortunately, across our country have become littered
with abandoned and blighted properties.
In Ohio, there are about 80,000 of these abandoned home; hundreds of
thousands, of course, across the country. I have had the opportunity to
walk the streets in some of our cities in Ohio with some of our
farsighted mayors who are tackling this issue. They are looking for a
little bit of help. I have been in Warren, OH, Toledo, OH, and Lima,
OH.
When you walk these streets and talk to the people in the
neighborhoods, they let you know how they are feeling about this. They
don't like these blighted properties, in part, because it reduces the
home values for the whole neighborhood. In fact, there is some evidence
out there that these blighted properties can cost neighbors up to 80
percent of their home value. So one of the best things you can do for
tumbling home values in America right now in struggling neighborhoods
is demolish these abandoned properties.
Second, and this is very important, they become magnets for crime,
for arson, and for other dangerous activities that put neighbors at
risk. It puts first responders at risk. There are stories around the
country. Unfortunately, in my home State of Ohio, some first
responders, firefighters, have gone to a fire in an abandoned
structure, actually been injured, and in one case lost their life. This
is something neighbors feel strongly about.
When I was in Toledo, with the mayor of Toledo, observing one of the
demolitions--it was a house that was about 10 feet away from a
neighboring home. The mother was there with some of her young children,
and she said: Thank goodness this is happening, because every night I
go to sleep I put my head on my pillow praying that the house next door
is not going to be subject to the arson attacks that have happened in
the city of Toledo in these abandoned structures and praying that my
children are not going to be injured by an arson next door to me.
It is critical that we provide this help. Land banks in these areas
have done a terrific job. Cleveland, in particular, I will hold up as
doing a great job. But in States like mine and in other manufacturing
States--Florida, Michigan, and other States around the country--these
land banks are doing the best they can, but they need additional
resources to demolish many of these properties in order to help
struggling neighborhoods recover.
This has been a bipartisan issue. We have been able to direct some
funding there, including from the hardest hit funds. I want to continue
to make progress because it is so important, again, for our
neighborhoods and for the safety of those people who live in these
neighborhoods that are affected most directly by abandoned homes.
I hope we can get some votes from both sides of the aisle for this
amendment today and make it clear to those local officials across our
country, and to those neighbors in these communities, that we are going
to do what we can to help provide the resources to be able to deal with
these blighted and abandoned structures.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.

Amendment No. 944

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment to call up my amendment No. 944.
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 Florida [Mr. Nelson], for himself and Mr.
Schatz, proposes an amendment numbered 944.

Mr. NELSON. 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 use
tax dollars to censor publicly-funded climate science)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ____. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST USING TAX DOLLARS TO CENSOR
PUBLICLY-FUNDED CLIMATE SCIENCE.

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 censor or
otherwise limit the ability of any Federal employee or
Federal agency to use in official documents or presentations
terms common in scientific literature describing atmospheric,
climate, weather, or oceanic processes, including terms
relevant to changes in the global climate system or other
risks to human health, the environment, and the economy
related to air pollution.

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, what this amendment does is it supports
the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: freedom of speech, to
prohibit censorship of Federal agencies and Federal employees from
speaking in scientific terms about the oceans, the weather, the
atmospheres, and the climate.
You would think this is so common sense and so understood under our
freedom of speech in our U.S. Constitution, but we have all read news
reports at the State level, at the local level, and maybe even at the
Federal level that, indeed, some folks are trying to muzzle scientists
from speaking about the science involving the oceans, the atmosphere,
climate, and the weather.
I have the privilege of knowing something about the space program.
When I hear people saying they don't want NASA to get involved in
climate, well, NASA builds the satellites, NASA launches the
satellites--but then NOAA, in the Department of Commerce, operates
these weather satellites--other satellites that are taking measurements
of the Earth to understand what is happening to our atmosphere, what is
happening to our climate.
When I start talking about the atmosphere, I can't help but flash
back 29\1/2\ half years ago, looking at our planet out the window of a
spacecraft and looking at the rim of the Earth and seeing the thin
little film that is the atmosphere that sustains all of our life.
There is a lot about it that we don't know. There is a lot about it
that we, in fact, can measure scientifically. Yet for some reason,
there is some commentary going on in America today that we want to
muzzle our scientists.
So this amendment is a simple, little, commonsense amendment that
says you can't muzzle a Federal agency or a Federal employee, telling
them they can't use their First Amendment right of freedom of speech to
speak in scientific terms about the oceans, the weather, the
atmosphere, and the climate.
Imagine if we were going to muzzle researchers at the National
Institutes of Health and censor them, saying they couldn't use medical
terms such as asthma or cancer. What if that was off limits? There is
not even a question that we would consider that.
Last week, when we got into the matter of climate, a study suggested
the massive Antarctic glacier is melting. The water from that melting
glacier will impact global sea levels, potentially raising them by 10
feet. This week, researchers tell us the melting of Greenland's ice
sheet is slowing the cyclical ocean current that drives the warm gulf
stream, which comes right along the southeastern coast of my State and
goes out through the middle

[[Page S1969]]

of the Atlantic and warms parts of Western Europe. To understand all of
that, it is critical we have this information, which has the potential
to impact all of us, no matter where we live.
At times of seasonal high tide, the streets of Miami Beach are
flooded. The mayor of Miami Beach campaigned paddling in a kayak on
Alton Road, which is on the west side of the city of Miami Beach. He
campaigned in a kayak at the time of seasonal high flood talking about
what the city needed to do because of what NASA's scientists tell us.
This is what NASA has testified to before the Committee on Commerce,
Science and Transportation. This was not a forecast, they were not
projections, but measurements of the rise of the sea level in south
Florida over the course of the last 45 years--6 to 8 inches. Again,
this was not a forecast but measurements. Do we want to muzzle that
NASA scientist who testified before our committee and who, by the way,
in this case is also a NASA astronaut? Do we want to muzzle him?
Scientists simply must have the tools and the ability to tell us what
they observe without limitation on the terms they can speak. So let us
make clear that public science cannot be muzzled, that we won't support
censorship, and that the taxpayers deserve an honest return on their
investment.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.

Amendments Nos. 346, 425, 426, 427, 442, and 810 En Bloc

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment to call up my amendments Nos. 346, 425, 426, 427,
442, and 810 en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are called up en bloc.
The clerk will report the amendments by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins] proposes amendments
numbered 346, 425, 426, 427, 442, and 810 en bloc.

The amendments are as follows:

amendment no. 346

(Purpose: To modify the deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
promoting jobs in the United States through international trade to
include the reauthorization or extension of trade adjustment assistance
programs)

On page 58, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
(4) reauthorizing or extending trade adjustment assistance
programs;

amendment no. 425

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
improving retirement security)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO IMPROVING
RETIREMENT SECURITY.

amendment no. 426

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
promoting economic growth and job creation for small businesses)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO PROMOTING
ECONOMIC GROWTH AND JOB CREATION FOR SMALL
BUSINESSES.

amendment no. 427

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
investment in Alzheimer's disease research)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO INVESTMENT
IN ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE RESEARCH.

amendment no. 442

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to restore a
sensible definition of full-time employee for purposes of the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO THE
DEFINITION OF FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE.

amendment no. 810

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
increasing access to higher education for low-income Americans through
the Federal Pell Grant program)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO INCREASING
ACCESS TO HIGHER EDUCATION FOR LOW-INCOME
AMERICANS THROUGH THE FEDERAL PELL GRANT
PROGRAM.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, there will be very little time later
today when we start voting for there to be full explanations of any of
these amendments, which I think is very unfortunate. I do want to let
my colleagues know about some of these amendments, and I am proud to
say that, for the most part, the amendments I have filed and have now
called up are bipartisan amendments that enjoy support on both sides of
the aisle.
For example, my amendment No. 427 would create a deficit-neutral
reserve fund to support sufficient investment in Alzheimer's disease
research to achieve the goal set by the national plan to address
Alzheimer's disease--of having the means to prevent and effectively
treat that disease by the year 2025.
This amendment is cosponsored by Senator Moran, Senator Warner,
Senator McCaskill, Senator Toomey, and Senator Donnelly. It is modeled
very much on a bill that Senator Klobuchar and I have introduced to
increase funding for Alzheimer's research.
Just yesterday the Special Committee on Aging, which I lead along
with Senator McCaskill, held an extensive hearing on Alzheimer's
disease. We listened to preeminent researchers and individuals such as
B. Smith, who unfortunately has been afflicted with early onset
Alzheimer's. We listened to a caregiver and to a geriatric physician
from Portland, ME. We had testimony

[[Page S1970]]

from the Mayo Clinic and testimony from the individual who heads the
Institutes on Aging at the National Institutes of Health. To a person
they pointed out that we are spending $226 billion a year caring for
people with Alzheimer's, yet we are investing less than $600 million in
this disease.
The experts tell us that if our investment were at the level of $2
billion a year, we could explore the promising breakthroughs, the
therapeutic targets that are needed to develop a means of prevention or
better treatments or, ultimately, even a cure for Alzheimer's. Think of
that. That $2 billion figure that is recommended by the expert advisory
council, headed by Dr. Ron Peterson from the Mayo Clinic, is less than
1 percent of what we are spending caring for people with Alzheimer's.
This disease is going to bankrupt the Medicare and the Medicaid
Programs. We are currently spending $154 billion from those two
programs for care of patients with Alzheimer's.
That is one of the amendments I will be proposing.
I see the Senator from Illinois is on the floor, and he has been
another real leader in this area.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator from Maine yield for a question?
Ms. COLLINS. Yes, I will be happy to yield.
Mr. DURBIN. First, I want to thank her. I took a look at the 200
pending amendments on this budget resolution, and I think at least 10
relate to biomedical research from both sides of the aisle. This is
clearly a bipartisan issue, and I thank my colleague for speaking out
on this Alzheimer's issue, because these victims and advocates for
research came this week to visit.
It is stunning, just stunning, to think for a moment that we diagnose
a person with Alzheimer's in America once every 68 seconds. When staff
told me that, I couldn't believe it. I said, that has to be wrong, but
it is right. It is an indication of the rapid development and growth of
this terrible disease.
So I thank my colleague for putting in perspective the fact we spend
over $200 billion a year already on it, and that doesn't calculate all
of the sacrifices of the caregivers in helping members of the family.
It would seem to me that amidst all this budget debate there should
be certain areas that are sacred, and I think biomedical research
should be one of them. I thank my colleague for speaking up on
Alzheimer's and I hope we can continue this dialog on behalf of NIH and
the other agencies doing the research.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague and friend
from Illinois for his comments. I happened to catch his speech
yesterday. There was a sea of purple at our hearing--purple
representing the Alzheimer's cause. I hope one day purple will
represent Alzheimer's survivors. Wouldn't that be wonderful.
This is a high priority for me. And I agree with the Senator from
Illinois, I believe we should be increasing our investment in
biomedical research, particularly for Alzheimer's, but in many other
areas as well. The irony is that, ultimately, it will reduce not only
human suffering but the cost of health care.
The trajectory of Alzheimer's is such that if we do not develop
better treatments, a means of prevention, or a cure, by the year 2050
the estimate is we are going to be spending more than $1 trillion
taking care of people with Alzheimer's.
For all of us in the baby boomer generation, the estimates are that
by age 85, nearly 1 out of 2 of us will be afflicted with Alzheimer's,
if the current trajectory is unchanged. Frankly, we are going to be
spending our golden years either with Alzheimer's or taking care of
someone with Alzheimer's. So this is a crisis, and it deserves our
attention.
I know Senator Moran also has a broader amendment on biomedical
research, which I am proud to be a sponsor of, and this is an area
where I hope we can come together in a bipartisan way, as my colleague
has suggested.
Mr. President, there are other amendments I would like to briefly
discuss, seeing no one seeking the floor immediately, I don't believe.
I will have my staff check on that.
I am also going to offer an amendment to create a deficit-neutral
reserve fund to increase access to higher education for low-income
Americans through the Federal Pell grant program, including an
innovative idea that I am very interested in, and that the chairman of
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Senator Lamar
Alexander, is very interested in, which would allow for year-round Pell
grants so that individuals could complete their education more quickly.
Before I was elected to the Senate, I worked at a college in Maine--
Hudson University in Bangor, ME--and I saw firsthand the difference
that Pell grants made in the lives of these students. Indeed, on my
staff today there are highly talented individuals who were able to go
to college solely because of the existence of Pell grants. Their
families did not have experience with higher education and could not
afford higher education. Pell grants made possible a bright future for
these two women on my staff.
This is the kind of opportunity that should unite us and that all of
us should rally behind. Allowing year-round Pell grants would allow
students to complete their education more quickly and join the
workforce more quickly, which would help them financially as well. So I
hope this is something we can pursue and that will be adopted as well.
Another of my bipartisan amendments, No. 442, would establish a
deficit-neutral reserve fund to change the definition of full-time
employee under ObamaCare so a worker could work for more than 30 hours
per week before the employer mandate penalty would be triggered. This,
too, is bipartisan. Senator Donnelly, Senator Murkowski, Senator
Manchin, and I have all been working on this.
I hear from workers who are telling me their hours have been cut to
29 hours a week because of these penalties their employers simply
cannot afford. It is not just in the for-profit hospitality industry,
it is also in school systems, community colleges. So that is yet
another of my amendments that I hope will enjoy support later today.
Mr. President, I see a number of my colleagues on the floor, so I
yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold her request?
Ms. COLLINS. I am happy to withhold the request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.

Amendments Nos. 877 and 878 En Bloc

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment in order to call up two of my amendments en bloc:
Hirono amendments Nos. 877 and 878.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are called up en bloc.
The clerk will report the amendments by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Hawaii [Ms. Hirono] proposes amendments
numbered 877 and 878 en bloc.

The amendments are as follows:

AMENDMENT NO. 877

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
increasing college completion, which may include expanding Federal Pell
Grant eligibility by allowing college students to use Pell Grants for
more than 2 semesters in an academic year)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO INCREASING
COLLEGE COMPLETION.

Amendment No. 878

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
investing in clean energy and preserving the environment)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

[[Page S1971]]

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO INVESTING
IN CLEAN ENERGY AND PRESERVING THE ENVIRONMENT.

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, before I briefly outline my amendments, I
need to say a few words about the budget before us.
The vision outlined in the budget before us is truly a disaster for
the middle class and our economy. This budget lays out priorities that
would undermine the gains that millions have made in getting affordable
health insurance. It would undermine the ability of millions of
students to get a college education. It puts tax cuts for the wealthy
ahead of giving even a modest wage boost to those who are working hard
to get ahead. This budget would give big corporations the opportunity
to write their own rules while reducing the opportunity for the
disabled veterans and children to live a decent life.
Democrats have tried to improve this budget. We tried to eliminate
the sequester in a fair way. Republicans said no. We tried to make sure
our commitments to those on Social Security and Medicare remain
ironclad. The Republicans said no. We tried to close a few loopholes to
invest in our communities and create jobs. The Republicans said no. We
tried to give students the opportunity to get an affordable college
education. The Republicans said no.
Given all these problems, I cannot support this budget. This budget
favors the wealthy and special interests on the backs of middle-class
families, seniors, and students in Hawaii and across the Nation, but I
want to offer two ideas that I hope can improve this budget just a
little bit.
Amendment No. 877 would restore year-round Pell grants without
increasing the deficit. Many college students juggle work and family
schedules. To balance these commitments they need to attend college
year-round. But Pell grants can only be used in two semesters,
currently.
My amendment would allow students to access Pell grants year-round,
as they could from 2008 to 2011. This has been a bipartisan idea in the
past. In fact, Senator Collins just now offered her similar amendment,
amendment No. 810, that I also support. We should adopt this
commonsense, bipartisan policy.
I thank Senator Collins for her work in enabling students to complete
their college education in a way that would allow them to do so without
disruptions and additional costs. I look forward to working with her as
we move forward on this bipartisan-supported idea.
The second amendment I am offering, amendment No. 878, is very simple
as well. The budget resolution allows for energy legislation, provided
it is paid for only with cuts. It also lays out what I think is a very
limited view of our Nation's energy priorities, particularly the heavy
focus on fossil fuel development. My amendment would provide a broader,
more forward-looking view of our Nation's energy priorities. My
amendment allows for energy legislation that reduces our dependence on
foreign oil, increases energy efficiency and renewable energy
deployment and innovation, and addresses carbon pollution.
Hawaii relies on imported oil for energy. The U.S. military
recognizes that overreliance on fossil fuel is a national security
risk. We have to recognize our future can't be based on fossil fuels.
Hawaii and other States are leading the way in transitioning to a
clean energy economy. My amendment would ensure that Congress's
priorities are more in line with where Hawaii and our Nation are
heading in the future. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting
these two amendments.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.

Amendments Nos. 445, 448, and 449 En Bloc

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment to call up the following amendments en bloc: Gardner
amendments Nos. 445, 448, and 449.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are called up en bloc.
The clerk will report the amendments by number en bloc.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Gardner] proposes amendments
numbered 445, 448, and 449 en bloc.

The amendments are as follows:

Amendment No. 445

(Purpose: To prevent labor disputes at seaports in the United States
from causing national economic disruptions and crippling businesses
across the United States)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO PREVENT ECONOMIC
DISRUPTIONS AT SEAPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES.

Amendment No. 448

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
encouraging expedited approval of liquefied natural gas export
applications at the Department of Energy)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
ENCOURAGING EXPEDITED APPROVAL OF LIQUEFIED
NATURAL GAS EXPORT APPLICATIONS BY DEPARTMENT
OF ENERGY.

Amendment No. 449

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
supporting efficient resourcing for the Asia rebalance policy)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO SUPPORTING
EFFICIENT RESOURCING FOR THE ASIA REBALANCE
POLICY.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

Amendment No. 523

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment to call up the following amendment: Stabenow
amendment No. 523.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Ms. Stabenow], for herself, Mr.
Whitehouse, and Mr. Merkley, proposes an amendment numbered
523.

Ms. STABENOW. 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:

[[Page S1972]]

(Purpose: To prevent United States companies from getting tax benefits
for moving jobs overseas, to end offshore tax loopholes including
inversions, and to provide incentives for United States companies to
relocate overseas jobs to the United States)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO BRINGING
JOBS BACK TO AMERICA.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I believe every worker, every business
deserves a fair shot to get ahead. A basic American principle is
creating opportunity. We all know our workers are the best in the
world, and when we have a fair fight we can work hard and we can win,
but part of that fair fight is making sure we can do something about
the broken Tax Code and the system we have. My amendment would address
that, the Bring Jobs Home amendment.
We all know there are companies that, unfortunately, are able to game
the system to avoid paying their taxes. They move on paper in order to
be able to register in another country while still having the benefits
of our country or they move overseas and, through the Tax Code, we as
communities and their workers pay the cost of the move.
It is important to recognize the revenue that is being given up helps
pay for our American way of life--our roads, airports, clean water,
clean air, opportunities for education, innovation, medical research,
science--all of the things that create the wonderful quality of life we
have in our country that everyone contributes toward, those things that
we need to do together.
Unfortunately, the Tax Code is rewarding too many companies to be
able to take advantage of not doing their fair share. That is what my
amendment addresses.
As I indicated, moving their business on paper around to different
countries to avoid contributing to our American way of life, our
American quality of life, they invert, costing Americans tens of
billions of dollars in revenue that could go to support our veterans,
our national defense, rebuilding America's roads and bridges, and water
and sewer systems.
I believe it is particularly offensive to Americans when people find
out that, in fact, a company can decide to pick up and move, and the
cost of the move--the cost of packing up and leaving our country--is a
cost they can write off on their taxes, which means we all pay the
price; the workers who are packing people up, the communities that are
losing the jobs, our country, in terms of the lost revenue, and we pay
for it.
Over the last 10 years, 2.4 million jobs were shipped overseas, and
American taxpayers were asked to foot the bill. It makes no sense.
Surely, we can come together on a bipartisan basis and agree to stop
that--to stop that right off. That is what this amendment does.
Over 20 million more jobs are at risk of being shipped overseas
today. In fact, in Michigan we have lost more than 700,000 jobs to
offshoring. Now, I understand we are in a global economy. I understand
there are a lot of decisions being made around the globe as to where
companies will locate, but our Tax Code should not have loopholes in it
that incentivize companies to actually continue to either get the
benefits of America while pretending to be someplace else or moving and
having us help pay for it.
This is a very serious part of tax reform. As we debate a budget
resolution that has over $400 billion in cuts to Medicare for seniors
in it, that has over $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid--80 percent of the
dollars in Medicaid going for low-income seniors and people in nursing
homes--when we look at the fact that we have been trying to pass a bill
to create millions of good-paying American jobs by rebuilding America,
by rebuilding our roads, by rebuilding our infrastructure, we can't get
support to do that. People say we can't afford to pay for it.
This is the opportunity to create the revenue to pay for it, to
create the revenue to lower the cost of student loans so more people
have a fair shot to go to college, have an opportunity for the American
dream, so they are not coming out of college being riddled with all
kinds of debt, mounds of debt. It means they can't buy a house, they
can't buy a car, they can't get started in life with a family because
they are buried in debt. When we raise these issues on the floor, we
hear we cannot afford, as a country, to fix those things that affect
every family--people struggling to get into the middle class and stay
in the middle class.
I think this budget ought to be about the middle class. I think we
ought to be saying this is a middle-class budget, and I think if we are
going to do that, we have to come together on fair ways to be able to
fund those things that benefit everyone, that grow the economy by
creating and expanding the middle class. We will not have an economy
unless we expand the middle class. That means good-paying jobs here--
here. I am all about export. I just want to export our products, not
our jobs, and we have a Tax Code that is encouraging the export of our
jobs.
So I hope we come together around the Bring Jobs Home amendment,
agree there is one area of the Tax Code that everybody ought to support
fixing; that is, where folks are using loopholes and games and
gimmicks, frankly, to avoid contributing to the quality of life in our
country.
We can create opportunities without adding one more dollar to the
costs of middle-class families or small businesses or those who stay in
our country and decide they want to continue to be a part of our great
American economy. This is about closing for the tax cheaters who are
avoiding stepping up and being a part of solving America's problems.
My amendment No. 523 will bring jobs home and invest in the middle
class of our country. I hope this is an area we can come together on,
and I urge support for my colleagues.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.

Amendments Nos. 781, 565, 562, 552, and 590 En Bloc

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment to call up my amendments en bloc: amendments Nos.
781, 565, 562, 552, and 590.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are called up en bloc.
The clerk will report the amendments by number en bloc.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Florida [Mr. Rubio] proposes amendments
numbered 781, 565, 562, 552 and 590 en bloc.

The amendments are as follows:

amendment no. 781

(Purpose: To establish a spending-neutral reserve fund relating to
reducing foreign assistance to the Palestinian Authority and certain
United Nations agencies and increasing foreign assistance for Israel)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. SPENDING-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO REDUCING
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE TO THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY
AND CERTAIN UNITED NATIONS AGENCIES AND
INCREASING FOREIGN ASSISTANCE FOR ISRAEL.

[[Page S1973]]

amendment no. 565

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
ensuring that Medicare is not raided to bailout insurance companies
under the President's health care overhaul)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO ENSURING
THAT MEDICARE IS NOT RAIDED TO BAILOUT
INSURANCE COMPANIES UNDER THE PRESIDENT'S
HEALTH CARE OVERHAUL.

amendment no. 562

(Purpose: To establish a spending-neutral reserve fund relating to
establishing a new outcomes-based process for authorizing innovative
higher education providers)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. SPENDING-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
ESTABLISHING A NEW OUTCOMES-BASED PROCESS FOR
AUTHORIZING INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION
PROVIDERS.

amendment no. 552

(Purpose: To establish a spending-neutral reserve fund relating to
increasing funding for the relocation of the United States Embassy in
Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3__. SPENDING-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
INCREASING FUNDING FOR THE RELOCATION OF THE
UNITED STATES EMBASSY IN ISRAEL FROM TEL AVIV
TO JERUSALEM.

amendment no. 590

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
protecting the Medicare Advantage program)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO PROTECTING
THE MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PROGRAM.

Mr. RUBIO. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

Amendments Nos. 991, 636, and 638 En Bloc

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment to call up three Warner amendments en bloc:
amendments Nos. 991, 636, and 638.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are called up en bloc.
The clerk will report the amendments by number en bloc.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes amendments
numbered 991, 636, and 638 en bloc.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, was my amendment No. 991 reported in that
bloc as well?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
The amendments are as follows:

Amendment No. 991

(Purpose: To restore program integrity funding to combat waste, fraud,
and abuse)

(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')

amendment no. 636

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
protecting the personal information of consumers from data breaches)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO PROTECTING
THE PERSONAL INFORMATION OF CONSUMERS FROM DATA
BREACHES.

amendment no. 638

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-reduction reserve fund reserve fund
for Government reform and efficiency)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-REDUCTION RESERVE FUND FOR GOVERNMENT
REFORM AND EFFICIENCY.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to speak to these amendments
for a couple of moments.
The first amendment, No. 991, targets improper payments and fraud in
our largest entitlement programs. It is remarkable--every elected
official I have ever met at any level of government often rallies
against waste and fraud in government, and that means it so unusual
that this budget we have before us leaves out critical funding to fight
fraud and abuse in Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and disability
programs.
The amendment I am offering today would restore all program integrity
funding to the Republican budget to the levels allowed in the Budget
Control Act. Program integrity activities have a proven track record of
saving money. When we invest in programs that track and eliminate
overpayments and fraudulent claims, we end up reducing costs and
lowering budget deficits.
For example, according to the Social Security actuaries, program
integrity efforts to conduct ``continuing disability reviews''--
specifically to weed out beneficiaries who have recovered and are no
longer defined as ``disabled''--saves taxpayers $10 for every $1 spent
on program integrity efforts.
I am introducing this amendment because this is a good use of
taxpayer dollars and a critical way to ensure that the money we invest
in important programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security
disability goes directly to the beneficiaries who rely on

[[Page S1974]]

them. Any elected official who has ever said that we ought to root out
waste and fraud in entitlement programs should obviously be supporting
restoring these critical funds.
The second amendment I wish to raise is a bipartisan measure, No.
636, filed along with Senators Crapo and King, dealing with consumer
data security.
Recently, we have seen major data breaches that have affected
hundreds of millions of American consumers, those who have shopped at
Target and Home Depot, have accounts at JPMorgan Chase, or have
received health care from Anthem. In the aftermath of the Target
breach, working with Senator Kirk, we recommended that various industry
groups in the private sector cooperate on information sharing to ward
off data thieves.
With continuous advances in technology, it is vitally important that
we continue to strengthen our efforts to protect consumers from cyber
crime by enacting smart, targeted protections. Our bipartisan amendment
simply recognizes that we need to provide reasonable notification to
consumers when their personal information is compromised and encourage
greater cooperation and enhanced data security programs in the private
sector to safeguard that data. I urge my colleagues to support this
bipartisan amendment.
Finally, I would like to introduce a third amendment, No. 638, along
with my colleague Senator Ayotte, that mirrors language included in the
chairman's mark of our last budget resolution. This amendment
encourages Congress to act on the recommendations from GAO to improve
Federal Government efficiency by reducing fragmentation, overlap, and
duplication. The Senate has a bipartisan history of working on these
issues, and I think it is important that our budget resolution this
year include our continuing commitment to this work.
In 2010, Congress passed the bipartisan Government Performance and
Results Modernization Act, or GPRA, which required Federal agencies to
report how their money was being spent, as well as top priorities and
possible avenues of consolidation within the agency. Last year, we
passed the DATA Act, which works in concert with GPRA to further track
how agencies are spending money.
It is important that the savings from these actions go toward
reducing our deficit. That is why the Warner-Ayotte amendment is
actually a deficit-reduction reserve fund.
Again, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment.
I yield to my good friend, the Senator from Kansas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rubio). The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia for
yielding to me.
First of all, I would like to talk for a moment about the budget. I
am pleased that the Senate is debating a budget. We are required by law
to pass one by April 15. It has been a while since we have been able to
accomplish that. I am hopeful that the budget will be reconciled with
the House-passed budget, giving us the opportunity to develop 12
appropriations bills within this budgetary outline.
It is unfortunate that by the nature of a budget, it is a partisan
endeavor. The expectation is that no Democrat will vote for the budget
that ultimately will pass the Senate today. I hope that doesn't
continue to be true in another issue that I am encouraging and am
encouraged to know will be considered by the Senate, and that is the
sustainable growth rate fix, the so-called SGR fix.
Back in 1997, a budget act was passed that created a formula by which
physicians are reimbursed under Medicare. That formula has been very
damaging to the practice of medicine--the ability to sustain a practice
of medicine--particularly in areas of the country in which the
population is elderly and patients are generally on Medicare and most
of the physicians' income is then derived from reimbursement from the
Medicare system.
The SGR has created a series of problems. At least annually, there
has been a problem we have had to fix. Over a decade, we have spent
millions of dollars--in fact, $150 billion in short-term so-called doc
fixes.
What I hope happens after consideration of the budget today, tonight,
in the morning, is that there will be unanimous consent and agreement
that we take a vote on finally permanently fixing the problems created
by this SGR, the formula.
In my State of Kansas, there are 127 community hospitals across our
State that care for patients every day, every hour. Most of those
hospitals have a significant volume of Medicare patients. The
physicians who admit patients to those hospitals and see patients on an
ongoing basis in those communities see a significant portion of their
patients, and their bills are paid by Medicare.
In the last several years, the reduction in payment for a physician,
that Medicare reimbursement, has been in the neighborhood of 20 percent
to 30 percent. The reality, I think all of us know--in fact, it is
evidenced by the fact that every year we do a patch, we fix this
issue--what we know is that in the absence of fixing that formula
either on a periodic basis or today potentially permanently, physicians
will no longer be able to see Medicare patients. In many of the
communities I represent, the physicians are employed by the hospital.
So this becomes not just a physician issue, not just a hospital issue--
the reality is, it is a patient issue. Will you have a doctor in your
community who is willing to see, who is able to see a patient who is of
the age at which Medicare is providing Medicare health care benefits?
The opportunity we have today is important. We can do so many things
by permanently fixing the SGR. The outcome is that communities across
our country and communities across my State of Kansas have a much
brighter hope that their hospital doors remain open and physicians
continue to practice medicine in their communities.
Our health care providers face tremendous challenges today related to
the Affordable Care Act, related to the ever-increasing amount of
regulatory burden placed upon hospitals and doctors, upon the costs
associated with moving toward computerized medical records. Our health
care providers in many instances are hanging on by a thread, and
whether or not a community has a doctor, has a hospital determines
whether that community has a future.
I know that in my own hometown of Plainville, the ability of my
parents--who lived into their nineties--to remain in their hometown was
determined by whether there was an active, quality medical community,
quality physicians who cared about their patients and hospitals, who
were there to admit their patients when that care was needed. Only
because that existed in our hometown were my parents, into their
nineties, able to continue to live in a community they called home.
The SGR fix is a significant component to make certain that no people
have to move, no senior citizens have to move someplace closer to a
doctor or a hospital because their hospital no longer is in existence
or their physician no longer cares for folks who have Medicare.
The SGR, which I did not support when it was created, has caused a
volatile and unsustainable system for both patients and health care
providers. The uncertainty of knowing when and if Congress is going to
fix by a patch creates problems in and of itself, in addition to the
ultimate reimbursement rate that physician receives.
The time to act is now. We are as close to a permanent SGR fix as we
have been in my time in Congress. It would be a very sad occurrence if
we let this opportunity slip by, and one more time, in a few months, we
will be back trying to figure out how to patch the SGR once again. We
will spend more money. We will create greater uncertainty. We will
hasten the day in which citizens of our country--Medicare recipients--
are no longer able to see a physician of their choice or be admitted to
the hospital in their community.
I am of the view that we ought not move on to other business. We
ought not recess for this April period of time until we make sure that
tonight or in the morning the SGR fix is permanently put in place.

Amendments Nos. 467, 468 En Bloc

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending
amendment to call up the following amendments en bloc on behalf of
Senator Blunt: amendments Nos. 467 and 468.

[[Page S1975]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are called up en bloc.
The clerk will report the amendments by number en bloc.
The legislative clerk read as follow:

The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Moran], for Mr. Blunt,
proposes amendments numbered 467 and 468 en bloc.

The amendments are as follows:

amendment no. 467

(Purpose: To establish a spending-neutral reserve fund relating to the
direct provision of defense articles, defense services, and related
training to the Kurdistan Regional Government)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. SPENDING-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO THE
DIRECT PROVISION OF DEFENSE ARTICLES, DEFENSE
SERVICES, AND RELATED TRAINING TO THE KURDISTAN
REGIONAL GOVERNMENT.

amendment no. 468

(Purpose: To establish a spending-neutral reserve fund relating to
military aid to Israel)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. SPENDING-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO MILITARY
AID TO ISRAEL.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

Amendments Nos. 707, 967, 896, 897, and 573 En Bloc

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside to call up amendments Nos. 707, 967, 896, 897,
and 573 en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are called up en bloc.
The clerk will report the amendments by number en bloc.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] proposes
amendments numbered 707, 967, 896, 897, and 573 en bloc.

The amendments are as follows:

amendment no. 707

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
reduce overdose deaths)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO REDUCING
OVERDOSE DEATHS.

amendment no. 967

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
domestic medical isotope production)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO DOMESTIC
MEDICAL ISOTOPE PRODUCTION.

amendment no. 896

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
improving the safety of offshore oil drilling in the United States)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO IMPROVING
THE SAFETY OF OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING IN THE
UNITED STATES.

amendment no. 897

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
protecting consumers in the United States from price increases due to
large-scale natural gas exports)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO PROTECTING
CONSUMERS IN THE UNITED STATES FROM PRICE
INCREASES DUE TO LARGE-SCALE NATURAL GAS
EXPORTS.

amendment no. 573

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
promoting the repair and replacement of natural gas distribution
pipelines and infrastructure no longer fit for service)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO REPAIR AND
REPLACEMENT OF NATURAL GAS DISTRIBUTION
PIPELINES AND INFRASTRUCTURE NO LONGER FIT FOR
SERVICE.

Mr. MARKEY. I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, a lot of things have happened. We are on
the path, I hope, to being able to pass a budget that balances in 10
years. It has some problems, but I think it would be a major change
from the course we

[[Page S1976]]

have been on, and so I will support it. I hope to be able to support
it, although things could happen, I guess, between now and our final
vote.
One of the things I wish to share with my colleagues is simply that
the proposal to fix the doctors' payments--the so-called doc fix, the
SGR--which has been around for a long time is one of my highest
priorities. It is, indeed, unreasonable and unjustified to require
doctors to be uncertain every year as to whether they are going to get
a 21-percent or so reduction in their Medicare payments. They can
hardly do the work at that fee level. So we do need to fix it.
However, on the same day that we are now declaring that we want to
pass a budget that puts us on a financial path to balance in 10 years
by a meager $3 billion--a balanced budget plan, a responsible plan; an
idea and goal to achieve--we are also talking about passing an unpaid-
for plan, and in my view it is not responsible, to spend and borrow
another $141 billion, after the proposed offsets, to pay for the doc
fix. This is what brings this Congress into disrepute. The same day we
assert we want to have a balanced budget, and we lay out a plan that
will get us there in 10 years, we are now considering passing an
unpaid-for increase in spending that will add $141 billion to the debt.
Colleagues, we just can't do that.
To my physician friends, whom I talked to a lot about this and who
are worried about it, let's all work together to lay out a plan that
will pay for this expense. We can do that. Maya MacGuineas is at the
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a well-respected,
bipartisan group. They have basically been shocked by this proposal.
They submitted papers that said over 20 years it will add $500 billion
to the debt. While, some have said that over 20 years, it will pay for
itself. According to Maya MacGuineas' analysis, it won't, and we don't
have official data now. So why would we allow this legislation to pass
through so fast?
I urge my colleagues, let's do a short-term fix again, but then let's
do a permanent fix, one that is responsible, one that is grownup, one
that is paid for, and not just one that adds more debt to the credit
card of America at a time when we cannot do that anymore.
I am so disappointed that we may not be able to let this legislation
clear today because I don't believe it is going to be beneficial to us.
We can come back and take action to maintain the appropriate payment
levels. Let's do it the right way so we can be proud of it.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

Amendments Nos. 435, 473, 593, and 993 En Bloc

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside and, on behalf of Senator Menendez, call up
amendments Nos. 435, 473, 593, and 993 en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are called up en bloc.
The clerk will report the amendments by number en bloc.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], for Mr. Menendez,
proposes amendments numbered 435, 473, 593, and 993 en bloc.

The amendments are as follows:

amendment no. 435

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
support for Ukraine, which should include the provision of lethal
defensive articles)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO SUPPORT
FOR UKRAINE, WHICH SHOULD INCLUDE THE PROVISION
OF LETHAL DEFENSIVE ARTICLES.

amendment no. 473

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
providing funding to combat anti-Semitism in Europe)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO PROVIDING
FUNDING TO COMBAT ANTI-SEMITISM IN EUROPE.

amendment no. 593

(Purpose: To require consideration of long-term deficits for any
legislation relating to repealing or replacing the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act and the health care-related provisions of the
Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010)

Beginning on page 87, strike line 23 and all that follows
through page 88, line 4.

amendment no. 993

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
strengthening the national do-not-call registry)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO STRENGTHEN THE
NATIONAL DO-NOT-CALL REGISTRY.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

Amendments Nos. 665, 677, 678, 667, 666, and 668 En Bloc

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment to call up my amendments en bloc: Nos. 665, 677, 678,
667, 666, and 668.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are called up en bloc.
The clerk will report the amendments by number en bloc.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Flake] proposes amendments
numbered 665, 677, 678, 667, 666, and 668 en bloc.

The amendments are as follows:

Amendment No. 665

(Purpose: To establish a spending-neutral reserve fund relating to
prohibiting awarding of construction contracts based on awardees
entering or not entering into agreements with labor organizations)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. SPENDING-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
PROHIBITING AWARDING OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
BASED ON AWARDEES ENTERING OR NOT ENTERING INTO
AGREEMENTS WITH LABOR ORGANIZATIONS.

[[Page S1977]]

2020 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2016 through
2025.

Amendment No. 677

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
preventing political targeting by the Internal Revenue Service of
individuals and social welfare organizations exercising free-speech
rights)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO PREVENTING
POLITICAL TARGETING BY THE INTERNAL REVENUE
SERVICE OF INDIVIDUALS AND SOCIAL WELFARE
ORGANIZATIONS EXERCISING FREE-SPEECH RIGHTS.

Amendment No. 678

(Purpose: To establish a spending-neutral reserve fund relating to
prosecution of first-time illegal border crossers)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. SPENDING-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO FIRST-
TIME ILLEGAL BORDER CROSSERS.

Amendment No. 667

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
ensuring that individuals do not simultaneously receive unemployment
compensation and disability insurance benefits)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO IMPROVING
THE FINANCIAL SOLVENCY OF THE UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION PROGRAM AND THE SOCIAL SECURITY
DISABILITY INSURANCE PROGRAM.

Amendment No. 666

(Purpose: To establish a spending-neutral reserve fund relating to
reducing the level of Federal premium support for crop insurance
policies, which may include eliminating premium support for crop
insurance for agricultural producers with an adjusted gross income of
more than $750,000 in fiscal year 2016)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. SPENDING-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO FEDERAL
PREMIUM SUPPORT FOR CROP INSURANCE POLICIES.

Amendment No. 668

(Purpose: To establish a spending-neutral reserve fund relating to
government reform and efficiency)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. SPENDING-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
GOVERNMENT REFORM AND EFFICIENCY.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.

Amendments Nos. 504, 505, 506, 1011

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment to call up the following amendments en bloc on behalf
of Senator Sullivan: Nos. 504, 505, 506 and 1011.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are called up en bloc.
The clerk will report the amendments by number en bloc.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Enzi], for Mr. Sullivan,
proposes amendments numbered 504, 505, 506, and 1011 en bloc.

The amendments are as follows:

Amendment No. 504

(Purpose: To establish a spending-neutral reserve fund relating to
limiting the ability of Environmental Protection Agency personnel to
carry guns)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3__. SPENDING-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO DISARMING
THE EPA.

Amendment No. 505

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
supporting programs related to the ground-based midcourse defense and
the long-range discrimination radar programs of the Department of
Defense)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 352. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO SUPPORTING
PROGRAMS RELATED TO THE GROUND-BASED MIDCOURSE
DEFENSE AND THE LONG-RANGE DISCRIMINATION RADAR
PROGRAMS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

Amendment No. 506

(Purpose: To establish a spending-neutral reserve fund relating to
protecting vulnerable families from job killing regulations)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

[[Page S1978]]

SEC. ___. SPENDING-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
PROTECTING VULNERABLE FAMILIES FROM JOB KILLING
REGULATIONS.

Amendment No. 1011

(Purpose: To establish a spending-neutral reserve fund relating to
providing an exemption from certain permitting requirements for routine
maintenance activities relating to transportation infrastructure)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. SPENDING-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO PROVIDING
AN EXEMPTION FROM CERTAIN PERMITTING
REQUIREMENTS FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES
RELATING TO TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE.

Mr. ENZI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SANDERS. 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. 1012

(Purpose: To strike more than $1.2 trillion in cuts to Medicaid,
preserving a critical source of comprehensive, affordable health and
long-term care coverage for millions of otherwise uninsured low-income
adults, parents, and seniors, including millions of nonelderly low-
income adults in States that expanded Medicaid as part of health
reform)

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside, on behalf of Senator Wyden, to call up
amendment No. 1012.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], Mr. Wyden, for
himself, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Brown, Mr. Casey, Ms. Stabenow, Ms.
Cantwell, and Mr. Whitehouse, proposes an amendment numbered
1012.

Mr. SANDERS. 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 printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Shaheen and Senator Isakson be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes in
order to call up our amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendments Nos. 321, 611, and 839 En Bloc

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment to call up amendments Nos. 321, 611, and 839 en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are called up en bloc.
The clerk will report the amendments by number en bloc.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Isakson] proposes amendments
numbered 321, 611, and 839 en bloc.

The amendments are as follows:

amendment no. 321

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
establishing a biennial budget and appropriations process)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
ESTABLISHING A BIENNIAL BUDGET AND
APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS.

amendment no. 611

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to subject all
fees collected by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to the
annual appropriations process)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO SUBJECTING
ALL FEES COLLECTED BY U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES TO THE ANNUAL
APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS.

amendment no. 839

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
supporting United States citizens held hostage in the United States
embassy in Tehran, Iran, between November 3, 1979, and January 20,
1981)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 352. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO SUPPORTING
UNITED STATES CITIZENS HELD HOSTAGE IN THE
UNITED STATES EMBASSY IN TEHRAN, IRAN, BETWEEN
NOVEMBER 3, 1979, AND JANUARY 20, 1981.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I am glad to join the Senator from New
Hampshire on a very important piece of legislation that is being
proposed as an amendment to the budget today. It is called the Biennial
Budgeting and Appropriations Act which 2 years ago passed this Senate
with 68 votes. It has bipartisan support this year. It is the right way
to solve our biggest problem, which is responsible spending in
Washington.
The Biennial Budgeting and Appropriations Act assumes the following:
What we have been doing has been broken for years. Every President
since Ronald Reagan has endorsed the biennial budget. Twenty of the
fifty States in the United States of America have a biennial budget. It
is time we did budgeting and oversight and allowed time for both.
What this bill basically says is that in odd-numbered years we will
do our appropriating and in even-numbered years we will do oversight of
appropriations.
Wouldn't it be great to change the paradigm in America to where
during election years and even years, instead of saying how much bacon
we are going to bring home, to instead say how much savings we are
going the find in the appropriations process. We can find new money to
fund new programs without raising taxes or raising revenues of the
Federal Government.
It is a responsible way to run our country, it is a way we ought to
run

[[Page S1979]]

our country, and it is a responsible way for America to return to
fiscal accountability.
With an $18.1 trillion deficit and with spending going haywire and us
not being able to do budgeting or appropriating at all, it is time we
call time out, fix our problem, and move forward.
I yield to the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, who as
Governor of New Hampshire for 6 years did biennial budgeting and has
great experience in that effort.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from
Georgia, Senator Isakson, in supporting the biennial budgeting
amendment. This is legislation we have been working on--this will be
the third session of Congress now--and it is a response to what I think
we would all agree is a broken budget process here in Washington.
Since 1980, we have only had two budget processes that have been
finished on time, according to established process. In that timeframe,
since 1980 when, as Senator Isakson pointed out, every President has
endorsed biennial budgeting, Congress has resorted to more than 150
short-term funding bills or continuing resolutions. That is no way to
govern. While we have made progress in recent years to reduce our
deficits, we need reform of our budget process.
Senator Isakson pointed out very eloquently how this proposal would
work. In New Hampshire, where I served three terms as Governor, I had a
legislature of members of the other party and yet we were able to pass
biennial budgets 3 years, on time, that were balanced. It worked in New
Hampshire. It works in 19 other States. It can work here.
This is an opportunity for us to begin to reform our budget process.
It won't fix everything, but it will go a long way in addressing our
opportunity to provide oversight in the second year of the budget
process.
I hope our colleagues will join us, and that we will again, as we did
in 2013, have a majority to support biennial budgeting in this body.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from New
Hampshire for her remarks and thank her for her commitment.
The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over
again and expect a different result. It is time we get a different
result in Washington, which is balanced budgets, fiscal accountability,
and balanced spending, and a biennial budget will do that.
In our remaining time, with the permission of the Senator from New
Hampshire, I wish to address one other amendment we have called up to
be pending, which is amendment No. 839, which has already been
reported.
Amendment No. 839 is very simply an amendment that recognizes the
fact that 52 Americans were taken captive in 1979 in Iran at our
Embassy. Forty-four of them are still alive. They remain the only
American hostages ever taken who were never compensated for their time.
We have revenue accumulating because of the Iranian sanctions.
Everybody on the Foreign Relations Committee is supportive, and I think
the State Department is too, of seeing to it we take a portion of those
sanctions and compensate the American hostages of the Iranian
Government from 1979 to 1980.
As the Presiding Officer will remember, it was the day Ronald Reagan
was sworn in that Jimmy Carter finally made arrangements to get those
hostages out of Tehran. They suffered torture, physical abuse, and
terror for 444 days. They deserve to be compensated. We deserve to take
the money the Iranians have been paid for sanctions and see to it these
Americans are compensated for what they suffered in 1979 and 1980.
I appreciate the time from the Chair and I yield back the remainder
of our time.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendments Nos. 750, 855, 749, 856, and 759 En Bloc

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment to call up the following amendments en bloc on behalf
of Senator Lee: Amendments Nos. 750, 855, 749, 856, and 759.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are called up en bloc.
The clerk will report the amendments by number en bloc.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Enzi], for Mr. Lee, proposes
amendments numbered 750, 855, 749, 856, and 759 en bloc.

The amendments are as follows:

Amendment No. 750

(Purpose: To modify the spending-neutral reserve fund reauthorizing
funding for payments to counties and other units of local government to
ensure payment at levels roughly equivalent to property tax revenues
lost due to the presence of Federal land)

On page 64, lines 10 and 11, strike ``Payments in Lieu of
Taxes (PILT)'' and insert ``funding the payments in lieu of
taxes program at levels roughly equivalent to lost tax
revenues due to the presence of Federal land''.

Amendment No. 855

(Purpose: To prohibit increasing the public debt limit under
reconciliation)

At the end of title II, add the following:

SEC. 202. LIMIT ON SENATE CONSIDERATION OF RECONCILIATION.

(a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate
to consider a bill or joint resolution reported pursuant to
section 201, or an amendment to, conference report on, or
amendment between the Houses in relation to such a bill or
joint resolution, which would increase the public debt limit
under section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, during
the period of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.
(b) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended in the
Senate only by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the
Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(c) Appeals.--An affirmative vote of two-thirds of the
Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be
required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on
the point of order raised under this section.

Amendment No. 749

(Purpose: To ensure that the reserve fund relating to affordable
healthcare choices for all is used to repeal and not further empower
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act)

On page 50, line 17, strike ``or reforming''.

Amendment No. 856

(Purpose: To establish a spending-neutral reserve fund to support
legislation preventing the Federal Communications Commission from
reclassifying broadband providers as common carriers under title II of
the Communications Act of 1934 and from implementing other ``net
neutrality'' provisions)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3__. SPENDING-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO PROHIBIT THE
RECLASSIFICATION OF BROADBAND PROVIDERS AS
COMMON CARRIERS UNDER TITLE II OF THE
COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934.

Amendment No. 759

(Purpose: To establish a spending-neutral reserve fund relating to
clarifying Federal jurisdiction with respect to intrastate species)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. SPENDING-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
CLARIFYING FEDERAL JURISDICTION WITH RESPECT TO
INTRASTATE SPECIES.

[[Page S1980]]

years 2016 through 2020 or the period of the total of fiscal
years 2016 through 2025.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendments Nos. 925 and 926 En Bloc

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment to call up my amendments Nos. 925 and 926 en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are called up en bloc.
The clerk will report the amendments by number en bloc.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Tillis] proposes
amendments numbered 925 and 926 en bloc.

The amendments are as follows:

Amendment No. 925

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to the
United States civil courts system)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ____. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO THE
UNITED STATES CIVIL COURTS SYSTEM.

Amendment No. 926

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
ensuring that the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall
not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on
account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude)

At the end of title III, insert the following:

SEC. __. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO ENSURE THAT VOTING
RIGHTS OF CITIZENS ARE NOT DENIED OR ABRIDGED
ON ACCOUNT OF RACE, COLOR, OR PREVIOUS
CONDITION OF SERVITUDE.

The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
amendments between houses, motions, or conference reports
relating to ensuring that the right of citizens of the United
States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United
States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous
condition of servitude, by the amounts provided in such
legislation for that purpose, provided that such legislation
would not increase the deficit over either the period of the
total of fiscal years 2016 through 2020 or the period of the
total of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.

Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, amendment No. 925 recognizes the work that
has been done by the Judicial Conference to make discovery in civil
cases less cumbersome and costly.
Amendment No. 926 incorporates language from the 15th Amendment--no
denial or abridgement of the right to vote on account of race--into our
budget instructions.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendments Nos. 729, 342, and 588 En Bloc

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment to call up the following amendments en bloc:
amendment No. 729, amendment No. 342, and amendment No. 588.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are called up en bloc.
The clerk will report the amendments by number en bloc.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] proposes amendments
numbered 729, 342, and 588 en bloc.

The amendments are as follows:

amendment no. 729

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to invest in
surface transportation projects)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
INVESTMENTS IN SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS.

amendment no. 342

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to the
National Guard State Partnership Program)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO THE
NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.

amendment no. 588

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
increasing the number of U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers at
air ports of entry)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 352. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO INCREASING
THE NUMBER OF U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER
PROTECTION OFFICERS AT AIR PORTS OF ENTRY.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.

Amendments Nos. 402, 596, 597, and 865 En Bloc

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment to call up, on behalf of Senator Johnson, amendments
Nos. 402, 596, 597, and 865 en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are called up en bloc.
The clerk will report the amendments by number en bloc.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Enzi], for Mr. Johnson,
proposes amendments numbered 402, 596, 597, and 865 en bloc.

The amendments are as follows:

Amendment No. 402

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
improving information sharing by the Inspector General of the
Department of Veterans Affairs with respect to investigations relating
to substandard health care, delayed and denied health care, patient
deaths, other findings that directly relate to patient care, and other
management issues of the Department)

At the end of title III, add the following:

[[Page S1981]]

SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO IMPROVING
INFORMATION SHARING BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS WITH RESPECT
TO INVESTIGATIONS RELATING TO SUBSTANDARD
HEALTH CARE, DELAYED AND DENIED HEALTH CARE,
PATIENT DEATHS, OTHER FINDINGS THAT DIRECTLY
RELATE TO PATIENT CARE, AND OTHER MANAGEMENT
ISSUES OF THE DEPARTMENT.

Amendment No. 596

(Purpose: To convey clear information in graphic form about projected
deficits)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. TO CONVEY CLEAR INFORMATION TO CONGRESS AND THE
PUBLIC ABOUT PROJECTED DEFICITS.

As part of the annual update to the Budget and Economic
Outlook required by section 202(e) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 602(e)), the Congressional
Budget Office shall--
(1) include a projection of Federal revenues, outlays, and
deficits for a 30-year period beginning with the budget year,
expressed in terms of dollars and as a percent of gross
domestic product; and
(2) publish a graph depicting the magnitude of projected
deficits in the Federal budget on a unified basis under
current policy, expressed in terms of billions of dollars,
arranged appropriately to show--
(A) the magnitude of the combined projected deficits of the
budget year and the 9 subsequent fiscal years;
(B) the magnitude of the combined projected deficits of the
10th through 19th subsequent fiscal years;
(C) the magnitude of the combined projected deficits of the
20th through 29th fiscal years; and
(D) the magnitude of the combined projected deficits of the
entire period that includes the budget year and the 29
subsequent fiscal years.

Amendment No. 597

(Purpose: To convey clear information to Congress and the public about
projected Federal outlays, revenues, surpluses, and deficits)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. TO CONVEY CLEAR INFORMATION TO CONGRESS AND THE
PUBLIC ABOUT PROJECTED FEDERAL OUTLAYS,
REVENUES, AND DEFICITS.

As part of the annual update to the Budget and Economic
Outlook required by section 202(e) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 602(e)), and at any other time
the Congressional Budget Office releases projections of
Federal deficits over any term of years, the Congressional
Budget Office shall publish with its projection a 1-page
statement--
(1) summarizing and categorizing total outlays, receipts,
surpluses, and deficits of the Federal Government on a
unified basis for that same prospective time period;
(2) categorizing and subtotaling separately--
(A) outlays for mandatory programs and for discretionary
programs;
(B) outlays, payroll tax revenue, and offsetting receipts
for Social Security and for Medicare;
(C) the surplus or deficit of revenues over outlays for
Social Security and for Medicare; and
(D) revenues.

Amendment No. 865

(Purpose: To establish a spending-neutral reserve fund to accommodate
legislation that would stop the Federal government from forcing States
to pay unemployment compensation benefits to millionaires)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. SPENDING-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO STOP THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT FROM FORCING STATES TO PAY
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS TO
MILLIONAIRES.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until
12 noon today be equally divided between the managers or their
designees, and that at 12 noon, the Senate vote in relation to the
following amendments in the order listed, with no second-degree
amendments in order prior to the votes but with side-by-side amendments
allowed to be offered by Senator Sanders, or his designee, on the Scott
amendment No. 692 and the Vitter amendment No. 515, and that the vote
occur on the listed amendment second; so that the order then would be
Sanders No. 881, Kirk No. 545, Stabenow No. 523, Rubio No. 423, Wyden
No. 1012, Paul No. 940, Murray No. 798, Moran No. 356, Baldwin No. 432,
Collins No. 810, Franken No. 828, Scott No. 692, Coons No. 966, Blunt
No. 928, Durbin No. 817, Vitter No. 515, Bennet No. 947, Murkowski No.
838, and Inhofe No. 649.
I further ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes 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. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ENZI. For the information of all Senators, this will be the first
series of votes today.
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. COCHRAN. 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. 932

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 932.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for himself and
Ms. Mikulski, proposes an amendment numbered 932.

Mr. COCHRAN. 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
establishing a biennial budget resolution process)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
ESTABLISHING A BIENNIAL BUDGET RESOLUTION
PROCESS.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to support this
amendment. The amendment I am offering along with the Senator from
Maryland, the vice chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, Ms.
Mikulski, proposes the creation of a biennial budget resolution
process.
Having a two-year budget could enable the annual appropriations
process to run more smoothly, and it might also benefit other
committees. The appropriations process often bogs down due to the
failure of the budget resolution process. If there is no budget
resolution in place, there is no framework to facilitate consideration
of appropriations bills.
Establishing a biennial budget process does merit serious
consideration, but biennial appropriations are another matter.
Proponents of biennial appropriations argue that having an ``off
year'' in which there are no appropriations bills will mean more
oversight during the off year. Well, this ignores the close
relationship between oversight and the appropriations process itself.
Within each year's appropriations process, in the hearings before the
committee, informal meetings, committee

[[Page S1982]]

reports, and the bills themselves, Congress provides guidance--
admonitions sometimes--and funding adjustments based on program
performance and changing priorities. The appropriations process is one
of the best tools Congress has to reform, improve, eliminate, and
modernize programs under its jurisdiction.
Having an off year would not translate into more oversight. It might
well have the opposite effect, as Congress would not possess any hammer
or useful tool of the year's appropriations bill to modify agency
actions. So you're yielding more power to the executive branch to spend
money, borrow money, and try new programs without having proper
oversight of the appropriations and the authorizations process.
Writing and debating annual appropriations is an essential part of
the Congressional oversight responsibility that was contemplated by the
Framers of the Constitution. It does not detract from the power of, or
minimize or infringe on, authorizing committees' ability to perform
additional oversight. There is no limitation under this process of a
legislative committee's prerogatives. It provides the money, though, as
the Constitution contemplates, through an appropriation of funds
approved by the people's representatives--not the Executive's, not the
people who run the Departments, and not the President himself.
We changed things with the King of England during the colonial era.
The people recognized they wanted the people in charge. ``Here, sir,
the people govern'' became a watchword of the Revolution and the
establishment of the United States of America.
So under this suggestion, which we are criticizing at this moment,
Congress would be compelled to do one of two things: either adjust
appropriations in the off year through supplemental appropriations, or
give agencies themselves greater flexibility to move money around among
different programs and activities that are part of the government
spending process.
The first defeats the purpose of the biennial appropriations
proposal. The second is a further expansion of Executive power. You're
building up the Executive with more tools to do its will without
respect to what the people's representatives in the Congress might
prefer. The second is the further expansion of Executive power,
generally, that we should be wary of granting. The Executive has an
enormous amount of power, but under our system, we should seek an
equally powerful role for the people's representatives, and for the
direct election of Members of the U.S. Senate whose responsibility
includes the power to help ensure that the States have the funds they
need to carry out their responsibilities.
Congress can improve its performance in budgeting, but it does not
have to abandon the annual review of theFederal appropriations process.
It doesn't have to be part of the answer to the question.
So I hope Senators will carefully review what is at stake and what is
being suggested and consider that before you vote. I hope the Senate
will support my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, while waiting for the Senator from New
Jersey to arrive in his seat, I want to associate myself with the
remarks of the Senator from Mississippi, the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, Mr. Cochran.
I want to be sure we understand that this idea of biennial budgeting
is really a bad idea--well intentioned but a bad idea.
The Isakson amendment goes beyond a 2-year budget resolution and
calls for establishing 2-year appropriations of bills. The power of the
purse is one of Congress's most powerful holds. We shouldn't give it
up. What would happen, if we go with the Isakson and Shaheen amendment
and not follow Cochran-Mikulski, we need to know we would be putting
too much power in the hands of the executive branch, unelected
bureaucrats, and OMB. So proponents of biennial appropriating will not
approve congressional oversight--just the opposite.
Without annual appropriations bills, agencies will have little
incentive to be candid in their testimony and responsive to
congressional will and congressional directives. We sacrifice our most
important tool.
The other consideration is the practicality. Under biennial
appropriations, the timeline between the initial forecast and the
actual budget could be 30 months; then, we can't also respond to
emergencies. Threats change every day--ISIS, security, the crisis that
just happened to our allies in Germany. We have to be able to respond.
Congress should not tie its own hands and limit its ability. Support
Cochran-Mikulski, defeat Isakson-Shaheen.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

Amendment No. 881

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 881, which is 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 Vermont [Mr. Sanders], for himself and
Mrs. Murray, proposes an amendment numbered 881.

=========================== NOTE ===========================

On page S1982, March 26, 2015, in the second column, the
following language appears: . . .[Mr. SANDERS] proposes. . .

The online Record has been corrected to read: . . .[Mr.
SANDERS], for himself and Mrs. Murray, proposes. . .

========================= END NOTE =========================

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
promoting a substantial increase in the minimum wage)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO PROMOTING
A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN THE MINIMUM WAGE.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.

Amendments Nos. 720, 721, and 722 En Bloc

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment to call up my amendments Nos. 720, 721, and 722 en
bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are called up en bloc.
The clerk will report the amendments by number en bloc.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Booker], proposes
amendments numbered 720, 721, and 722 en bloc.

The amendments are as follows:

amendment no. 720

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
supporting workforce development through apprenticeship programs)

At the end of title III, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO SUPPORTING
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT THROUGH APPRENTICESHIP
PROGRAMS.

amendment no. 721

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to encourage
freight planning and investment that incorporates all modes of
transportation, including rail, waterways, ports, and highways to
promote national connectivity)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
ENCOURAGING FREIGHT PLANNING AND INVESTMENT
THAT INCORPORATES ALL MODES OF TRANSPORTATION,
INCLUDING RAIL, WATERWAYS, PORTS, AND HIGHWAYS.

[[Page S1983]]

and highways, 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.

amendment no. 722

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
prohibiting payments for conversion therapy or treatments that purport
to change the gender identity or sexual orientation of an individual
under the Medicare and Medicaid programs)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
PROHIBITING PAYMENTS FOR HARMFUL AND FRAUDULENT
TREATMENTS UNDER MEDICARE AND MEDICAID.

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I hope to have the opportunity to speak
about amendments Nos. 720 and 722 later, but I would like to speak now
about No. 721, which is a freight rail amendment.
I am very happy to see the Presiding Officer, Senator Rubio, whom I
have worked with on other legislation. Having bipartisan work on
important critical issues is essential. I am happy to join with Senator
Fischer on this important amendment.
It focuses on the urgency to improve the movement of freight and
strengthen our competitiveness by investing in a comprehensive
multimodal national network that includes not just our major highways
but our rails, seaports, local roads, and intermodal facilities.
I am happy to see Senator Sanders, who has the courage to stand and
speak about the infrastructure deficit in our country and calls for
bold, fiscally sound investment. I want to make sure, as we move
forward, that freight planning and investment as seen by this amendment
is prioritized. Along with Senator Fischer, I support broadening our
approach to freight policy that would promote greater national
productivity. Why is this important? Hundreds of millions of tons of
freight are annually shipped through our ports, rails, and highway
networks.
The Great Corridor runs from my State of New Jersey to New York, to
Philadelphia, moving over $55 billion in goods each year, and is one of
the most significant chokepoints in the U.S. transportation network
that moves $17 trillion of goods between metropolitan areas each year.
The incredible freight network drives our economy, boosts economic
competitiveness, and creates jobs in America, thousands and thousands
of jobs. With a slight adjustment of our priorities and a strong
national commitment to investing in our infrastructure, we can
dramatically reduce congestion, improve the health of our American
communities and make sure goods get where they need to go faster,
cheaper, all while strengthening our economy and creating jobs.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important
amendment and look forward to continuing to work on critical
transportation and infrastructure priorities.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time for debate has expired.
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment and ask for consideration of amendment No. 1024.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I object. The vote is set aside for 12 noon.
We could have 50 more people coming down and offering additional
amendments. They will have an opportunity to offer those amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

Amendment No. 881

There is 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote on the Sanders amendment
No. 881.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this is a very simple, straightforward
amendment. It calls for a substantial increase in the minimum wage. The
simple truth is that in America, people working full time should not be
living in poverty. Since 1968, the real value of the Federal minimum
wage has fallen by close to 30 percent. People all over this country
and in State after State on their own have voted to raise the minimum
wage.
By the way, in State after State where the minimum wage has gone up,
more jobs have been created. Let us stand today with the tens of
millions of workers who are struggling to put food on the table, to
take care of their families. Let us raise the minimum wage
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
This is not the proper place for this. It can be handled as regular
legislation at any time. This budget resolution is focused on balancing
the budget in 10 years. That is important in and of itself, because
balancing the budget renews job growth and expands opportunity for
hard-working families.
CBO analyzed our budget for its economic growth impact. That report
makes it clear that the economy grows as the government slows its
spending rate. With that growth comes new jobs. Building on CBO's
analysis, it is clear that over 1 million new jobs could be created if
our budget took full effect. That will create competition for
employees. That will increase wages.
The minimum wage was designed to be a training wage that teaches
people how to show up for work on time and how to learn a job before
transitioning to new jobs, and those that do get advanced really
quickly.
I would ask there be a ``no'' vote on this amendment. It does not
belong in this budget.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Portman). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HEINRICH. 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. 1024

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 1024.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Heinrich], for himself,
Mr. Udall, and Mr. Bennet proposes an amendment numbered
1024.

Mr. HEINRICH. 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
provide for the sale of Federal land to reduce the Federal deficit)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST THE SALE OF FEDERAL LAND TO
REDUCE THE FEDERAL DEFICIT.

(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
provide for the sale of any Federal land (other than as part
of a program that acquires land that is of comparable value
or contains exceptional resources or that is conducted under
the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (43 U.S.C. 2301
et seq.)) that uses the proceeds of the sale to reduce the
Federal deficit.
(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).

Vote On Amendment No. 881

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Sanders
amendment No. 881.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 52, as follows:

[[Page S1984]]

[Rollcall Vote No. 93 Leg.]

YEAS--48

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

NAYS--52

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kirk
Lankford
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
The amendment (No. 881) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I understand there is a bipartisan agreement
in the works to modify the Kirk amendment No. 545 and, therefore, I ask
unanimous consent that the vote on amendment No. 545 occur after the
vote on Inhofe amendment No. 649.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 523

There are now 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote on Stabenow
amendment No. 523.
The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I would hope we could all come together
and agree that we want to bring jobs back to America. This is about
saying if you are a business in America and you want to pretend to move
offshore on paper but have the benefits of clean air and clean water
and roads and all of the benefits of our American way of life, you
ought to be contributing to that way of life. So this closes tax
loopholes being used by companies right now to avoid paying their fair
share.
Small businesses are here paying their fair share; individuals are,
workers are. Yet we have a code where you can pack up and move overseas
and American taxpayers have to foot the bill for the move. The workers
losing their jobs have to foot the bill for the move. It makes no
sense.
We want to bring jobs back to America. This simply closes egregious
loopholes to make sure everybody is a part of America and that
everybody is contributing to our quality of life and our way of life in
America. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this
amendment. Some of Senator Stabenow's tax reform ideas might have
merit, but they should be dealt with in the context of comprehensive
tax reform rather than as a stand-alone proposal. Otherwise, we would
have a whole bunch of these stand-alone proposals that would become
part of the budget, instead of empowering committees of jurisdiction to
handle them as regular legislation, which they still would have to do.
The U.S. Tax Code is overly complicated. It is inefficient, and it is
archaic. The current structure hurts economic growth, frustrates
working Americans, and pushes American businesses overseas. Any
discussion of international or corporate tax reform should take place
in the context of comprehensive tax reform to simplify the whole
system.
The budget resolution assumes the tax-writing committees will adopt a
tax reform proposal that reduces marginal rates but broadens the tax
base to create a fair, efficient, competitive, pro-growth tax regime,
and that the revenue is neutral. We look forward to working on that in
the Committee on Finance.
I oppose the amendment, and I ask for a ``no'' vote. I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Ms. STABENOW. 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.
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 54, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 94 Leg.]

YEAS--46

NAYS--54

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kirk
Lankford
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
The amendment (No. 523) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on
Wyden amendment No. 1012 occur after the vote on the Stabenow amendment
No. 523, and that amendment No. 940 be modified with the changes that
are at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 940), as modified, is as follows:

On page 14, line 2, increase the amount by $76,513,000,000.
On page 14, line 3, increase the amount by $48,578,000,000.
On page 14, line 6, increase the amount by
$112,990,000,000.
On page 14, line 7, increase the amount by $87,604,000,000.
On page 14, line 11, increase the amount by
$29,603,000,000.
On page 14, line 15, increase the amount by
$11,863,000,000.
On page 14, line 19, increase the amount by $6,396,000,000.
On page 14, line 23, increase the amount by $3,274,000,000.
On page 15, line 19, decrease the amount by
$21,000,000,000.
On page 15, line 20, decrease the amount by $6,300,000,000.
On page 15, line 23, decrease the amount by
$21,000,000,000.
On page 15, line 24, decrease the amount by
$16,800,000,000.
On page 16, line 3, decrease the amount by $13,020,000,000.
On page 16, line 7, decrease the amount by $3,570,000,000.
On page 16, line 11, decrease the amount by $1,050,000,000.
On page 17, line 12, decrease the amount by
$14,000,000,000.
On page 17, line 13, decrease the amount by $9,100,000,000.
On page 17, line 16, decrease the amount by
$14,000,000,000.
On page 17, line 17, decrease the amount by
$11,900,000,000.
On page 17, line 21, decrease the amount by $4,200,000,000.
On page 17, line 25, decrease the amount by $2,100,000,000.
On page 18, line 4, decrease the amount by $700,000,000.
On page 20, line 13, decrease the amount by
$10,000,000,000.
On page 20, line 14, decrease the amount by $6,500,000,000.
On page 20, line 17, decrease the amount by
$10,000,000,000.
On page 20, line 18, decrease the amount by $8,500,000,000.
On page 20, line 22, decrease the amount by $3,000,000,000.
On page 21, line 1, decrease the amount by $1,500,000,000.
On page 21, line 5, decrease the amount by $500,000,000.
On page 28, line 20, decrease the amount by
$20,000,000,000.
On page 28, line 21, decrease the amount by
$16,000,000,000.
On page 28, line 24, decrease the amount by
$20,000,000,000.
On page 28, line 25, decrease the amount by
$19,600,000,000.

[[Page S1985]]

On page 29, line 4, decrease the amount by $4,000,000,000.
On page 29, line 8, decrease the amount by $400,000,000.
On page 33, line 19, decrease the amount by
$41,000,000,000.
On page 33, line 20, decrease the amount by
$29,520,000,000.
On page 33, line 23, decrease the amount by
$41,000,000,000.
On page 33, line 24, decrease the amount by
$41,000,000,000.
On page 34, line 3, decrease the amount by $11,480,000,000.

Amendment No. 1012

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote
on Wyden amendment No. 1012.
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, earlier in this week I was encouraged when
Republicans voted with Democrats to approve an amendment I introduced
with Senator Sanders that would protect Medicaid beneficiaries from
benefit cuts under the budget. But when we actually look at the
Republican budget on Medicaid, it is impossible to square that budget,
which has $1.2 trillion in cuts, with the vote that was held earlier
this week to protect Medicaid. And we can't get those savings without
cutting reimbursements for nursing homes and long-term care services.
Medicaid pays 40 percent of all nursing home care.
Colleagues, let us be consistent with our Medicaid vote that was cast
earlier this week, and support my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' The
budget before us suggests we modernize the Medicaid program based on
the successful and bipartisan model of the Children's Health Insurance
Program.
The Senate budget strengthens and improves Medicaid and protects the
most vulnerable among us who rely on the program. The budget does not
cut Medicaid. It slows its rate of growth. The Senate Finance Committee
will of course determine the details of any Medicaid reform should
legislation on that matter come before this body. And it would require
legislation.
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this budget makes massive cuts in
Medicaid and will throw women, men, and children off of that vitally
important program.
I strongly support the Wyden amendment. Let's protect Medicaid.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time remaining before the vote.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. WYDEN. 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 result was announced--yeas 47, nays 53, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 95 Leg.]

YEAS--47

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
King
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--53

Amendment No. 423

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote
on the Rubio amendment No. 423.
The Senator from Florida.
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, this is a pretty straightforward amendment.
It funds defense fully based on the Gates budget, which was the last
defense budget that was put together based solely on the assessment of
threats we face and the requisite military needs to deal with those
threats. The national security of our country is the predominant
obligation of the Federal branch of government. It is the one thing
that only the Federal Government can do, and it is the first thing it
is tasked with doing. If it cannot protect us from foreign threats and
protect our national security, all the other issues we are
contemplating become elementary. This is a critical component, given
the fact that around the world today there is an increase in threats
from radical jihadists and nonstate actors to rogue states such as Iran
and North Korea, to massive military buildup on behalf of the Chinese
and the Asia-Pacific region, to the challenges faced by NATO and our
allies in Europe as Vladimir Putin tries to redraw the post-Soviet
order in Europe.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this. It does, once again,
put us at the Gates' budget number which was the last number we arrived
at, that was presented to us, and that fully funds the needs of our
military based truly on the threats of the modern era.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. This is truly a remarkable amendment because it runs
directly in opposition to everything the Republicans have been talking
about. They say we have to cut Medicare and Medicaid and education
because of the terrible deficit. Do you know why we have a deficit and
large debt? Because we went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan and we
forgot to pay for it.
Now Senator Rubio says, hey, let's continue spending more money on
war but just put it on the credit card. We don't have to pay for it.
Enough is enough. If you want to go to war, start paying for that war.
Let the American people know what the cost of war is.
Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment
violates section 312(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. RUBIO. Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move
to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget
resolutions for purposes of my 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 senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 32, nays 68, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 96 Leg.]

YEAS--32

Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Cassidy
Coats
Collins
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Gardner
Graham
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kirk
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sasse
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Wicker

NAYS--68

Alexander
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cochran
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Daines
Donnelly
Durbin
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gillibrand
Grassley
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Reid
Rounds
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Sessions
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Vitter
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 32, the nays are
68.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the

[[Page S1986]]

affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
The point of order is sustained and the amendment falls.
The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. I wish to remind everyone that these are supposed to be 10-
minute votes. I am asking for a little bit closer timing on this. We
have hundreds of them to go yet today, so we need to be more responsive
in voting. It is a 10-minute vote.
I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 940, as Modified

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate prior to a
vote on the Paul amendment No. 940, as modified.
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, national defense is the No. 1 priority of
the Federal Government. My amendment increases defense spending, but
pays for it with spending cuts. It is irresponsible and dangerous to
continue to put America further into debt, even for something we need.
We need national defense, but we should pay for it.
America does not project power from bankruptcy court. We need a
strong national defense, but we should be honest with the American
people and pay for it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the Republican budget throws 27 million
people off of health care. It denies nutrition programs for hungry kids
and pregnant women. It cuts $90 billion from the Pell program, making
it harder for young people to get a college education, and it raises
the price of prescription drugs for the elderly. For Senator Paul, that
is apparently not enough. He wants, over a 2-year period, $189 billion
in cuts to discretionary programs, which will be devastating to the
working families of this country.
Stop the war against working families. Vote no on the Paul amendment.
I make a point of order that the pending amendment violates section
312(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move
to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget
resolutions for purposes of my amendment, and I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 4, nays 96, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 97 Leg.]

YEAS--4

Enzi
McConnell
Paul
Vitter

NAYS--96

Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Durbin
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
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 4, the nays are 96.
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, as modified, falls.
The Senator from Washington.

Amendment No. 798

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering today would
simply expand access to paid sick days and give our families some much
needed economic stability.
Working families should not have to sacrifice a day's pay or
sacrifice their job altogether just to take care of themselves or a
sick child, but today in this country, 43 million of our Nation's
workers do not have access to paid sick days. This amendment would
allow workers to earn up to 7 paid sick days over the course of a year.
It will not only help our families, it will be good for business.
Paid sick days boost productivity, and in cities and States that
already have paid sick leave laws, many employers state that this
policy has not affected their revenue.
Allowing workers to earn paid sick days would take us a step closer
to having an economy that works for all of our families, and I urge its
support.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this
amendment. Under the current law, the Family Medical Leave Act provides
12 work weeks of job-protected unpaid leave for employees following the
birth of a child, to care for a seriously ill family member, or for
their own serious health issues.
Voluntary paid leave programs work precisely because they are
voluntary, thereby offering flexibility to both employees and
employers. The one-size-fits-all approach does not permit the
flexibility needed to help all kinds of businesses and all kinds of
workers. Employers, not the Federal Government, are best situated to
know the benefits compensation that should be provided.
This, again, is a bill that should go through committee. It might be
very successful if it goes through the committee process, but
regardless it ought to, and so I ask for a ``no'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Murray
amendment No. 798.
Mrs. MURRAY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 39, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 98 Leg.]

YEAS--61

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

NAYS--39

Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Capito
Coats
Cochran
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Inhofe
Lankford
Lee
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Perdue
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Tillis
Vitter
Wicker
The amendment (No. 798) was agreed to.

Change of Vote

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 98, I voted nay. I
intended to vote yea. Therefore, since it will not affect the outcome
of the vote, I ask unanimous consent that I be recorded as voting yea.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 98, I voted nay. I
intended to vote yea. Since it will not affect the outcome of the vote,
I ask unanimous consent that I be recorded as voting yea.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S1987]]

(The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)

Amendment No. 356

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). There is 2 minutes of debate
prior to a vote on the Moran amendment No. 356.
The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, the Moran amendment is an attempt to
address the issue--in fact it is addressing the issue--of the 40-mile
requirement contained in the choice act that Congress passed in August.
Senators may recall that in August we were successful in coming
together and passing legislation to give veterans greater options if
they live more than 40 miles from a VA facility or if they cannot get
the services within 30 days, the VA should provide those services, if
they choose, at home.
This amendment makes clear that the VA should provide those services
in the circumstance where there is a VA facility within 40 miles, but
it does not provide--if it does not provide the service the veteran
needs, it does not count against the 40 miles. This is a commonsense,
very bipartisan amendment. I ask that it be adopted.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Moran raising this
issue. Last year we wrote the Veterans Access, Choice, and
Accountability Act. We included language to allow veterans living at
least 40 miles from a VA facility to access care in the community.
Like Senator Moran, I represent a rural State. I am the first to
understand the unique needs of rural veterans. I have spoken with
Senator Moran and understand his intention is to ensure that veterans
living at least 40 miles from a facility that provides the care they
need can seek care in the community through the Choice Program on a
case-by-case basis.
If that is his intention, I think it is a good amendment. I think we
should all support it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 99 Leg.]

YEAS--100

Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
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
The amendment (No. 356) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 432

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote
on Baldwin amendment No. 432.
The Senator from Wisconsin.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, my amendment would create a free
community college program, making a bold investment in our Nation's
students, its workforce, and the future of our economy.
It pays for this investment in a balanced way, and my amendment would
actually reduce the deficit by enacting the Buffett rule, asking
millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share of taxes while
giving our students a fair shot at the opportunities a higher education
brings.
Inspired by programs in Tennessee and Chicago, this spring President
Obama proposed a program that would allow students to attend community
college for 2 years at no cost. This was a bold step.
Passing my amendment will show that Congress is ready to act to give
every student a fair shot at an affordable education. Voting for this
amendment means you believe a college education should be a path to the
middle class and not a path into debt.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on the Baldwin-Schumer-
Sanders-Stabenow amendment to support free community college and invest
in our students and our workforce.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, for the 1 minute in opposition, I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. It spends more than $50
billion and pays for it by raising taxes.
This amendment is again telling the Finance Committee exactly how to
do its work. But worse yet, the President's budget proposal for
community college tuition free for all is not free for the States.
The Federal Government would pay 75 percent, but the States have to
pay 25 percent. That is a 25-percent unfunded mandate. There is no
provision for the States to be covered under this thing.
So we are telling them they are going to provide free college,
although a lot of them already do. For the poor, the Pell grant is
$5,775, and the average college tuition is $3,347. But it is not clear
exactly what strings the administration would attach to States and
community colleges in exchange for a 75-percent match.
Some of Senator Baldwin's tax reform ideas may have merit, but they
should be dealt with in the context of comprehensive tax reform rather
than as a stand-alone proposal.
I ask my colleagues to vote ``no.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). The question is on agreeing to
the Baldwin amendment.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 55, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 100 Leg.]

YEAS--45

NAYS--55

Amendment No. 810

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote
on the Collins amendment No. 810.
The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of
myself and Senator Hirono. Our amendment would create a deficit-neutral
reserve fund to expand access to higher education for some of our
neediest students through the Pell grant program.
The amendment would allow for year-round Pell grants so students who
want to accelerate their degrees by taking additional courses,
including during the summer, can receive an additional Pell grant when
they need it

[[Page S1988]]

and complete their education more quickly without having to wait for
the next academic year to begin.
I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. I want to thank the Senator from Maine. We should be
working to make college more affordable, reducing the crushing burden
of student debt, and giving Americans a chance to further their
education and training skills.
The underlying budget makes drastic cuts to Pell grants and would
increase the average student's debt by thousands of dollars. The
amendment of the Senator from Maine would help make college more
affordable and accessible by reinstating the year-round Pell grant,
which is a much needed investment to improve students' success.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mrs. MURRAY. I urge our colleagues to support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I think we have an agreement to take this on
a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 810) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 828

(Purpose: To provide additional resources to save student financial aid
and keep college affordable for more than 8,000,000 low- and middle-
income students by restoring the $89,000,000,000 in cuts to Federal
Pell Grants in the Republican budget)

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote
on the Franken amendment No. 828.
The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, we just voice-voted an amendment to let
students use summer Pell grants, but the fact is this budget cuts Pell
grants. In Minnesota alone, more than 160,000 students were able to go
to college thanks in part to Pell grants, and the same holds for
millions around the country.
When my wife Franni and I were in college, a full Pell grant paid for
about 80 percent of a public college education. Today it pays for less
than 35 percent. Yet this budget would cut this program and make it
harder for students to pay for college. My colleagues want to cut it
further. We should not be doing that.
That is why I offer this amendment to restore funding for Pell
grants.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. FRANKEN. I urge my colleagues to vote yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator wish to call up his
amendment?
Mr. FRANKEN. I would say yes.
I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call
up my amendment.
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 Minnesota [Mr. Franken], for himself, Mr.
Brown, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Reed, proposes an amendment
numbered 828.

(The amendment is printed in the Record of March 25, 2015, under
``Text of Amendments.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote no.
First, this amendment would increase deficits relative to the budget
resolution. It increases spending in Function 500, with no offset.
Second, the budget resolution doesn't cut Pell grants, the primary
program helping these millions of people.
The budget does encourage restoring the Pell Grant Program to its
original status as a discretionary program, subject to annual review by
colleagues. The tuition purchasing power of Pell grants is at an all-
time low even though Pell grant spending has tripled in the past
decade. Since 2008, there has been an effort to maintain and increase
the maximum Pell grant, but college tuition increases faster than that.
This is a program that needs to be reviewed by the applicable
committee to see what needs to be done. We think there are parameters
in the budget to take care of the issue. It provides sufficient funding
on the discretionary side to maintain the maximum Pell grant level,
which is set to rise to $5,775 for the upcoming academic year.
I ask my colleagues to vote ``no.''
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 54, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 101 Leg.]

YEAS--46

NAYS--54

Amendment No. 1026

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside in order to call up my amendment No. 1026.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden], for Mrs. Murray, for
herself and Mr. Wyden, proposes an amendment numbered 1026.

Mr. WYDEN. 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
transparency health premium billing)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO CONSUMER PRICE
TRANSPARENCY.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, more than 5 years after being signed into
law, the Affordable Care Act is improving the health and well-being of
millions of Americans. Many of the Affordable Care Act's greatest
successes are getting lost in the noise of political attack ads. The
Affordable Care Act has expanded health care coverage to millions of
Americans. These people no longer have to go to bed at night worried
about the possibility of bankruptcy if they get sick.
Americans who had coverage already are benefiting from new
protections.

[[Page S1989]]

Women now pay the same premiums as men. Preexisting conditions can no
longer be used as an excuse to deny coverage, and health plans no
longer put lifetime caps on benefits. This amendment would require
insurers to disclose all of the benefits afforded to consumers through
the Affordable Care Act.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, we don't have any problem with this being
taken by voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to amendment No. 1026.
The amendment (No. 1026) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 692

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote
on Scott amendment No. 692.
The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment in order to call up the Scott amendment No. 692 in
regard to transparency in health insurance costs.
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 Carolina [Mr. Scott] proposes an
amendment numbered 692.

Mr. SCOTT. 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:

amendment no. 692

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
transparency in health premium billing)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
TRANSPARENCY IN HEALTH PREMIUM BILLING.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, my amendment is a very simple amendment. It
simply seeks to make sure insurance companies increase the transparency
on the actual cost of the health insurance tax on monthly premiums.
The bottom line is this: When a single mom goes to the grocery store
and she gets her receipt, at the bottom of the receipt it reflects the
taxes she has paid. When a father of three buys clothes, at the end of
his receipt it reflects the taxes that are being paid.
By the year 2018, this invisible tax not seen by the average
insurance purchaser will have raised about $14.3 billion in costs
because of this health insurance tax. My amendment makes it easier to
understand and appreciate the actual cost of the health insurance tax.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Affordable Care Act is a critical
step forward in our efforts to build on our progress to put patients
first and allows every family to get affordable, quality health care.
But the work didn't end when the law passed--far from it. Families
across the country are expecting us to keep working to build on that
progress and continue to make health care more affordable, accessible,
and of higher quality. That is what we are focused on, on this side,
and the amendment that just passed did that, but we should not be
playing political games in joining to move our health care system
backward. It is bad enough that the underlying budget repeals the
health care law and cuts patients and families off without proposing an
alternative law, but this amendment makes it worse. It means patients
and families get skewed, incomplete information about their health care
costs. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 44, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 102 Leg.]

YEAS--56

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Bennet
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
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--44

Baldwin
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
The amendment (No. 692) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the
Coons amendment be moved to occur after Kirk amendment No. 545.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 928

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate prior to
a vote on Blunt amendment No. 928.
The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment,
amendment No. 928. It will create a deficit-neutral reserve fund to
prohibit a fee or tax on carbon emissions. This vote is important to
send a clear message to the administration that Americans cannot afford
to pay higher utility bills because of bad energy policies.
I thank Senator Thune for cosponsoring this amendment, and I urge my
colleagues to support it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator wish to call up his
amendment?
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 928.
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 Missouri, [Mr. Blunt], for himself and Mr.
Thune, proposes an amendment numbered 928.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to protect the
United States from an energy tax)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO CARBON
EMISSIONS.

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 S1990]]

resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions,
amendments, amendments between the Houses, motions, or
conference reports related to carbon emissions, which may
include prohibitions on Federal taxes or fees imposed on
carbon emissions from any product or entity that is a direct
or indirect source of emissions, 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. Mr. President, I yield 20 seconds to the Senator from
California.
Mrs. BOXER. I say to my colleagues that when you put a price on
carbon, it works. If you look at my State, we are creating jobs in
clean energy. We are balancing our budget better than we ever have
before. We have strong support from the people of California. I don't
know why on Earth we would say no to something that leads to
prosperity, jobs, and a clean and healthy environment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I yield 20 seconds to the Senator from
Rhode Island.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, the premise of this is that climate
change is not real and not urgent, which puts that side of the aisle at
odds with NASA, the Department of Defense, every major American
scientific society, corporate leaders in their home States, and
probably every single State university in their home States.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, climate change----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, 20 plus 20 equals 40 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. They spoke for more than 20 seconds.
All time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to Blunt amendment No. 928.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 42, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 103 Leg.]

YEAS--58

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

NAYS--42

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
The amendment (No. 928) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 817

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate prior to
a vote on Durbin amendment No. 817.
The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we have a Tax Code in America which
creates incentives and rewards to companies all across the United
States.
I am proposing what I call the patriot employers' tax credit. It is a
tax credit for those American companies that hire Americans and keep
their jobs in the United States, for companies that pay at least half
of their employees $15 an hour--and we picked that number because at
that wage, one doesn't qualify for the basic safety net programs--
companies that provide good health insurance for their employees, good
pension programs for their employees, and companies that give a
preference to veterans and to those in the Reserve and National Guard
who are serving overseas. I think those companies deserve our
encouragement, a reward of a tax credit for patriotic employers.
I hope my colleagues will join me in standing up for the companies
that stand up for America.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, here we go again. I will be asking the
Senate to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Again, Senator Durbin has some good tax reform ideas. They probably
have merit, but we should deal with these ideas through comprehensive
tax reform rather than a stand-alone proposal that tells the Finance
Committee how to do its work.
So far, we have resisted every one of these amendments. I assume we
will resist the rest of them today. But we can't tell the Finance
Committee how to handle comprehensive tax reform if we expect to
simplify the whole system.
So I ask for a ``no'' vote, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, is there any time remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time remaining.
The question is on agreeing to the Durbin amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 54, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 104 Leg.]

YEAS--46

NAYS--54

Amendment No. 515

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate prior to a
vote on Vitter amendment No. 515.
The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this amendment, No. 515, the Vitter
amendment, is very simple and straightforward but important. It says
that the U.S. Department of Education should not be able to bribe or
coerce States into any particular set of standards or curriculum or
testing, whether it is common core or anything else. That decision
should be up to the States. That decision should be up to local
education communities, not the Federal Government. The Federal
Government, through our Department of Education, should not bribe or
coerce States in any direction. That is what the amendment is all
about.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I think we all believe that in our
country all students should have access to a quality public education
regardless of where they live or how they learn or how much money they
make. Education is one of the smartest investments we can make.
Chairman Alexander and I are working together on a bipartisan process
to fix the broken No Child Left Behind law. I believe we are going to
make

[[Page S1991]]

progress in the coming weeks. I appreciate his working with me.
The fact is that this amendment is not needed. The common core was
not mandated by the Federal Government. Race to the Top did not mandate
adoption of common core. ESEA waivers have not mandated the common
core. Federal law already prohibits the Federal Government from
requiring States to adopt certain standards or curriculum.
By the way, this is a ``spending neutral'' reserve fund that I think
we all should be aware of for the first time in this Republican budget.
For all of those reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 46, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 105 Leg.]

YEAS--54

NAYS--46

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
King
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
The amendment (No. 515) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Kirk
amendment No. 545 and the Inhofe amendment No. 649 be modified with the
changes at the desk.
I further ask unanimous consent that a vote on Whitehouse amendment
No. 867 occur after the vote on the Murkowski amendment No. 838.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 545), as modified, is as follows:

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.

Amendment No. 947

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote
on Bennet Amendment No. 947.
The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment to call up amendment No. 947.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Bennet] proposes an
amendment numbered 947.

Mr. BENNET. 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 ensure that small businesses are provided relief as part
of tax reform by permanently increasing the maximum amount of the
section 179 small business expensing allowance to $1,000,000 and the
investment limitation to $2,500,000 and indexing them both for
inflation)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO SMALL
BUSINESS TAX RELIEF.

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, this is a simple amendment. It increases
the amount of money that small businesses can expense in a given year.
That makes it easier for them to purchase new equipment and grow the
economy.
It is especially important to places such as the State of Colorado,
where small businesses make up 97 percent of the employers in our
State. Specifically, the amendment increases the section 179 expensing
allowance to $1 million. Right now, it is at $25,000.
If we ever manage to pass another extenders bill, it will increase to
$500,000. As we all know, many small businesses are pass-through
entities. So they pay the individual tax rate even though they may use
business tax credits and deductions. So in tax reform they may lose
some of their credits but may not see a corresponding drop in their tax
rates.
As we begin the process of reforming our Tax Code, we need to ensure
that these types of small businesses can continue to grow, invest, and
innovate. This amendment takes an important step in achieving this
goal.
I am told that there is an agreement--there may be an agreement--to
have a voice vote on this amendment. That would certainly be fine with
me.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. I don't think there is any objection on our side to a voice
vote. I ask for a voice vote.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
Hearing no further debate, the question is on agreeing to Bennet
amendment No. 947.
The amendment (No. 947) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 838

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote
on Murkowski amendment No. 838.
The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 838.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is already pending.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, Senator Sullivan and I have come
together to move forward on this amendment. It provides a spending-
neutral reserve fund for the sale, transfer or exchange of Federal
lands to State and local governments.
I want to make sure that folks understand. This is not selling any
land by itself. Only subsequent legislation can do that. It would
require us to come back, just as we do now, with exchanges,
conveyances, and sales, to move the legislation through.
What we have done is we have made sure that all lands that are
included within national parks, national preserves, and national
monuments are excluded so there can be no effort to purchase or
exchange there.
Our amendment will allow us to craft balanced, bipartisan legislation
to empower States, improve conservation systems, and promote economic
growth.

[[Page S1992]]

That is exactly what we did last year, when we moved through the NDAA
with support from 80 Senators for that package.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, Americans have always had a deep
connection to the outdoors. In New Mexico, families go back year after
year to fish in the Santa Barbara River, to the Santa Fe National
Forest to hunt, and to the Gila National Forest.
Our public lands are part of our American heritage. We cherish
passing that tradition on to our children and to our grandchildren. Yet
this amendment would make it easier to turn our public lands over to
State land commissioners and eventually to sell them outright.
Make no mistake. This amendment will mean more locked gates and more
``no trespassing'' signs in places that families have used for
generation.
Colleagues, this land is your land. I urge Senators to vote no on
this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Murkowski
amendment.
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his inquiry.
Mr. SANDERS. Has the 10-minute limit expired?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is advised that it has.
Mr. SANDERS. Thank you.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, please, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There shall be no further inquiries during a
rollcall vote.
Mrs. BOXER. And what rule is that that governs that?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is advised that we are in a
rollcall vote.
Mrs. BOXER. Well, you allowed another parliamentary inquiry. Why
wouldn't you allow my parliamentary inquiry? All I want to know is how
many minutes we have gone over the vote. I hear it is 11 minutes, Mr.
President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The parliamentary inquiries are at the
sufferance of the Chair.
Mrs. BOXER. The sufferance of the Chair?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The sufferance of the Senate.
Mrs. BOXER. Well, the Senate is definitely suffering. But, in any
event, we are 11 minutes over. Let's bang the gavel.
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 106 Leg.]

YEAS--51

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

NAYS--49

Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gardner
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
King
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
The amendment (No. 838) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 867

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote
on Whitehouse amendment No. 867.
The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, this amendment would establish a
deficit-neutral reserve fund that would make it more difficult for
corporations and billionaires to secretly influence our elections
through secret contributions and also to prevent such entities from
evading campaign finance law, including by making false statements to
Federal authorities and agencies.
I can tell my colleagues, if you are not sick of the secret money
floating into our elections, your constituents are. So listen to your
constituents. Give this a vote, and let's get started on fixing this
grave American disgrace.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Respectfully, I think we have some skepticism about this proposal, and
I want to remind my colleagues this issue was decided by the Supreme
Court over 5 years ago. The Citizens United case has nothing to do with
corporate-union contributions to campaigns. Those prohibitions remain
in place, and the Supreme Court decision reversed what for-profit and
not-for-profit corporations can say in elections. The Bipartisan
Campaign Reform Act bans election-related expenditures and
communications by American corporations. Proposals like this amendment
are not designed to ensure transparency and civility of elections. They
are, as Justice Thomas's concurring opinion in Citizens United
correctly described, ``specifically calculated to curtail campaign-
related activities and prevent the lawful, peaceful exercise of First
Amendment rights.''
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our
side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 13 seconds.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. The Supreme Court specifically left the disclosure of
these sources of these secret contributions to Congress. So the Supreme
Court actually has given us this job. I urge that we take it up.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, how much time does our side have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time remaining.
Mr. ENZI. I ask for a ``no'' vote.
Mrs. BOXER. 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 Whitehouse amendment No. 867.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 107 Leg.]

YEAS--47

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
King
Kirk
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--52

NOT VOTING--1

Donnelly

The amendment (No. 867) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

[[Page S1993]]

Amendment No. 649, as Modified

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No.
649 be brought up, as modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe], for himself and Mr.
Moran, proposes an amendment numbered 649, as modified.

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that further 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 establish a spending-neutral reserve fund relating to
prohibiting funding of international organizations during the
implementation of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty prior to Senate
ratification and adoption of implementing legislation)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. SPENDING-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
PROHIBITING FUNDING OF INTERNATIONAL
ORGANIZATIONS DURING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
UNITED NATIONS ARMS TRADE TREATY PRIOR TO
SENATE RATIFICATION AND ADOPTION OF
IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote
on amendment No. 649, as modified.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, everyone in here knows what the United
Nations Arms Trade Treaty does. It doesn't infringe upon our Second
Amendment rights. We all know that. It also limits our ability to help
our allies like Israel in building their weapons system.
President Obama has signed the treaty but has not submitted it for
ratification; for one reason, he knows the votes are not there. Two
years ago, at 5 a.m. in the morning, 53 Senators, from both parties,
voted for my amendment very similar to this. My amendment would prevent
funds from going to the treaty Secretariat or any other organization
that is working to implement this treaty.
I ask for your support and retain the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, the United States is not a party to the
Arms Trade Treaty. It has not even been submitted to the Senate for
consideration. Regardless of your position on the treaty itself,
prohibiting funding for any international organization anywhere while
other countries are implementing a treaty is simply absurd. By the way,
the treaty for which we are not a party to ultimately makes the rest of
the world live up to the arms export standards of the United States,
which is good to prevent proliferation for destabilizing arms that
could be used against American soldiers and to help level the playing
field for U.S. defense manufacturers. So the amendment actually harms
U.S. national security by placing U.S. soldiers at greater risk from
armed soldier transfers to our enemies, illegitimately and illegally,
without proper oversight by other countries.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 15 seconds.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is very simple. If you are for extreme
gun control and against the Second Amendment rights, you ought to vote
no on this.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Inhofe
amendment No. 649, as modified.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 41, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 108 Leg.]

YEAS--59

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

NAYS--41

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
The amendment (No. 649), as modified, was agreed to.

Amendment No. 545, as Modified

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate prior to a
vote on Kirk amendment No. 545, as modified.
Who yields time?
The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, the coming amendment is the Kirk-Brown
amendment which is the key Iran vote of this session of Congress.
If my colleagues are upset about the intel-sharing arrangement with
the State of Israel, if my colleagues feel we should rebalance our
policy with regard to the United States potentially voting against
Israel in the U.N., this is the time to rebalance our policy with
regard to our allies in the State of Israel.
I urge the body to support this Brown-Kirk bipartisan amendment which
has been worked out with the other side. I just talked to the senior
Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, who assured me she supports this
amendment. So does the senior Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez,
with whom I have built such a long, bipartisan partnership on the Iran
issue.
I urge adoption of this amendment.
I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will just take 20 seconds and yield the
rest.
I hope we all vote for this because it doesn't do anything to cause
disarray in negotiations. What it says is if there is a deal and there
is a breakout and it is certified that there is a breakout with Iran,
we would have a very quick way to restore sanctions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. I thank the Senator from Illinois as well as the Senator
from New Jersey and the Senator from California.
We are united in our goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear
weapon; we all know that here. I commend the President for trying to
resolve the nuclear dispute diplomatically.
I urge my colleagues to support the Kirk-Brown-Boxer-Menendez
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
All in favor say aye, all opposed, no.
The ayes appear to have it.
Mr. KIRK. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, we voted. Regular order.

[[Page S1994]]

Mr. KIRK. I would like to get the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I have a point of order. Was the vote
called?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote was not called.
The yeas and nays have been asked for.
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.
The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 109 Leg.]

YEAS---100

Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
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
The amendment (No. 545), as modified, was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.

Amendment No. 966, as Modified

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask that my amendment be modified with
the changes that are at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator wish to call up the
amendment?
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I wish to call up amendment No. 966, as
modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Coons], for himself and Mr.
Sanders, proposes an amendment numbered 966, as modified.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
offsetting the costs of operations against the Islamic State)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO OFFSETTING
THE COSTS OF OPERATIONS AGAINST THE ISLAMIC
STATE.

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, we need to make sure we pay for our war
against ISIS. ISIS is a national security threat. We are just now
coming to the end of two long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that have
cost trillions of dollars, and we didn't pay for them. It is
unacceptable. Our country has a long history of paying for our wars,
and we need to return to that tradition. As a democracy, we should go
to war as a nation and not put the burden on just the troops and their
families.
I am pleased to have the cosponsorship of Senator Sanders, and I urge
my colleagues to support our amendment to raise the revenue necessary
to pay for our war.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Thank you, Mr. President.
I certainly appreciate the statement of my good friend, and we have
talked a good deal about this. I believe we ought to pay for everything
we do around here. There are all kinds of ways for paying for things,
including reducing spending on things we shouldn't be spending money
on. So I would like to work with him in the future. I agree with him
100 percent that the amount of money that goes out the door should be
equal to the amount of money that comes in the door, but I oppose this
amendment just because of the way it was crafted. I wish he had said it
needed to be paid for, and I would agree with that, but the way it is
crafted leads me to want to oppose this, and I hope on our side we will
do so.
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty seconds.
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I would simply say that I appreciate the
sentiment expressed by the Senator from Tennessee. I agree that all
wars need to be paid for. I think we need to recognize that revenue is
required to do so.
I yield the floor to Senator Sanders.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 20 seconds remaining.
Mr. ENZI. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no.'' The Coons amendment is
short and simple, but it claims it will offset the cost of the war
against ISIS with the President's budget. We didn't pass the
President's budget. This $8.8 billion is divided between the Department
of Defense, which executes Operation Inherent Resolve, and the State
Department, which provides----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. ENZI. I ask for a ``no'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, what this amendment says is that if
Senators vote for another war, this time they will have to raise taxes
to pay for it. No more wars on the credit card. Vote yes.
Mr. COONS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 54, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 110 Leg.]

YEAS--46

NAYS--54

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kirk
Lankford
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
The amendment (No. 966), as modified, was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wicker). The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, for the information of all my colleagues, it
only took us 6 hours 15 minutes to do 17 votes.
The next tranche has 26 votes in it. I need to let you know that you
don't have to wait all 10 minutes to turn in your vote. If you vote in
5 minutes, we can finish in 5 minutes.
Otherwise, a 5-minute vote takes us 10 minutes, just like a 10-minute
vote

[[Page S1995]]

takes us 20 minutes, and a 15-minute vote takes us 30 minutes.
We are going to have to cut down the time, or I am sure people are
going to give up before they get to some of their amendments.
I do need to announce that there is dinner in the Mansfield Room. It
is courtesy of Senator McConnell, and it is for both parties.
You also need to know that Senator Reid has agreed to provide dinner
tomorrow night in the Mansfield Room. So unless we can speed this up,
what we are looking for is a volunteer for breakfast and for lunch
tomorrow.
Looking at the list of amendments, I am pretty serious about all of
that. We need to speed it up.
To do that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
vote on the following amendments in the order listed, with no second-
degree amendments in order prior to the votes, with an exception of a
side-by-side to the Nelson amendment No. 944 and the McCain amendment
No. 360, and that the listed amendments be voted on second.
The first one is Isakson, No. 839; then Stabenow, 1072; Portman, 689;
Casey, 632; Thune, 607; Bennet, 1014; McConnell, 836; Merkley, 842;
Gardner, 443; Murray, 951; Graham, 763; Blumenthal, 825; Flake, 665;
Sanders, 475; Hatch, 1029; Schatz, 1063; Kirk, 1038; Nelson, 944;
McCain, 360; Wyden, 968; Lee, 750, as modified; Reed, 919; Cotton, 659;
Menendez, 993; Cotton, 664; Brown, 994.
The amendment (No. 750), as modified is as follows:

Amendment No. 750

On page 64, line 11, insert ``, which may include funding
the payments in lieu of taxes program at levels roughly
equivalent to lost tax revenues due to the presence of
Federal land'' after ``Taxes (PILT)''.

Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent that all the amendments on this
list not currently pending be made pending en bloc at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the nonpending amendments by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk as follows:

Stabenow, 1072; Bennet, 1014; McConnell, 836; Graham, 763;
Sanders, 475; Hatch, 1029; Schatz, 1063, Kirk, 1038; Wyden,
968; Reed, 919; Cotton, 659; Cotton, 664; Brown, 994.

The amendments are as follows:

Amendment No. 1072

(Purpose: To provide additional resources to reject the Senate
Republicans' proposed $435 billion in cuts to Medicare)

On page 32, line 2, increase the amount by $1,813,000,000.
On page 32, line 3, increase the amount by $1,813,000,000.
On page 32, line 6, increase the amount by $11,996,000,000.
On page 32, line 7, increase the amount by $11,996,000,000.
On page 32, line 10, increase the amount by
$22,539,000,000.
On page 32, line 11, increase the amount by
$22,539,000,000.
On page 32, line 14, increase the amount by
$30,065,000,000.
On page 32, line 15, increase the amount by
$30,065,000,000.
On page 32, line 18, increase the amount by
$38,117,000,000.
On page 32, line 19, increase the amount by
$38,117,000,000.
On page 32, line 22, increase the amount by
$47,460,000,000.
On page 32, line 23, increase the amount by
$47,460,000,000.
On page 33, line 2, increase the amount by $56,270,000,000.
On page 33, line 3, increase the amount by $56,270,000,000.
On page 33, line 6, increase the amount by $65,098,000,000.
On page 33, line 7, increase the amount by $65,098,000,000.
On page 33, line 10, increase the amount by
$76,773,000,000.
On page 33, line 11, increase the amount by
$76,773,000,000.
On page 33, line 14, increase the amount by
$84,543,000,000.
On page 33, line 15, increase the amount by
$85,543,000,000.

Amendment No. 1014

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
responding to the economic and national security threats posed by
human-induced climate change, as highlighted by the Secretary of
Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, the Administrator of
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the
Administrator of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO ADDRESSING
CLIMATE CHANGE.

Amendment No. 836

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to the
regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency of greenhouse gas
emissions, which may include a prohibition on withholding highway funds
from States that refuse to submit State Implementation Plans required
under the Clean Power Plan of the Agency)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO REGULATION
BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OF
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

Amendment No. 763

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
subjecting all Federal spending to sequestration)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO SUBJECTING
ALL FEDERAL SPENDING TO SEQUESTRATION.

Amendment No. 475

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
strengthening the United States Postal Service by establishing a
moratorium to protect mail processing plants, reinstating overnight
delivery standards, and protecting rural service)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
STRENGTHENING THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE.

[[Page S1996]]

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.

Amendment No. 1029

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to prevent
American jobs from being moved overseas by reducing the corporate
income tax rate)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO PREVENT AMERICAN
JOBS FROM BEING MOVED OVERSEAS BY REDUCING THE
CORPORATE INCOME TAX RATE.

Amendment No. 1063

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
ensuring all legally married same-sex spouses have equal access to the
Social Security benefits they have earned and receive equal treatment
under the law pursuant to the Constitution of the United States)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO ENSURING
EQUAL TREATMENT OF MARRIED COUPLES UNDER THE
SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAM.

Amendment No. 1038

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to increase wages
for American workers)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO INCREASE WAGES FOR
AMERICAN WORKERS.

Amendment No. 968

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
enacting middle class tax relief, including extending and expanding
refundable tax credits, such as tax provisions and policies included in
legislation like the Working Families Tax Relief Act, American
Opportunity Tax Credit Permanence and Consolidation Act, Helping
Working Families Afford Child Care Act, or the 21st Century Worker Tax
Cut Act, among other legislation)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO MIDDLE
CLASS TAX RELIEF.

Amendment No. 919

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
eliminating deductions for corporate compensation in excess of
$1,000,000)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
ELIMINATING DEDUCTIONS FOR CORPORATE
COMPENSATION IN EXCESS OF $1,000,000.

Amendment No. 659

(Purpose: To establish a spending-neutral reserve fund relating to
prohibiting the designation of critical habitat)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. SPENDING-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO ENSURING
PROPER ECONOMIC CONSIDERATION IN DESIGNATION OF
CRITICAL HABITAT.

Amendment No. 664

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
construction of new facilities and improvements to existing facilities
at the detention facilities at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
CONSTRUCTION OF NEW FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS
TO EXISTING FACILITIES AT THE DETENTION
FACILITIES AT UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION,
GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA.

(a) Finding.--The Senate finds that the detention
facilities at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba, are an important tool in the counterterrorism efforts
of the United States.
(b) Deficit-neutral Reserve Fund.--The Chairman of the
Committee on the Budget of the Senate may revise the
allocations of a committee or committees, aggregates, and
other appropriate levels in this resolution for one or more
bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between the
Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to
construction of new facilities and improvements to existing
facilities at the detention facilities at United States Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 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.

Amendment No. 994

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to end ``too big
to fail'' bailouts for Wall Street mega-banks (over $500 billion in
total assets)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO END ``TOO BIG TO
FAIL'' BAILOUTS FOR WALL STREET MEGA-BANKS
(OVER $500 BILLION IN TOTAL ASSETS).

[[Page S1997]]

fiscal years 2016 through 2020 or the period of the total of
fiscal years 2016 through 2025.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that there
be 2 minutes 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. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendments Nos. 827, 1025, 533, 984, and 535 En Bloc

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment to call up the following amendments en bloc: Hatch
No. 827, Hatch No. 1025, Hatch No. 533, Hatch No. 984, and Hatch No.
535.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are called up en bloc.
The clerk will report the amendments by number en bloc.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Enzi], for Mr. Hatch,
proposes amendments numbered 827, 1025, 533, 984, and 535 en
bloc.

The amendments are as follows:

Amendment No. 827

(Purpose: To establish a spending-neutral reserve fund relating to
reforming the Federal regulatory process by enabling retrospective
review of existing regulations, improving the process by which new
regulations are created, ensuring fair and effective judicial review,
and securing an effective role for Congress in the Federal regulatory
process through legislation and oversight)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. SPENDING-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO REFORMING
THE FEDERAL REGULATORY PROCESS.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution
for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments,
amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports
relating to--
(1) creating an effective mechanism for the review of the
existing Federal regulatory burden to identify rules for
repeal or modification that--
(A) impose paperwork burdens that could be reduced
substantially without significantly diminishing regulatory
effectiveness;
(B) impose disproportionately high costs on small
businesses;
(C) could be strengthened in their effectiveness while
reducing regulatory costs;
(D) have been rendered obsolete by technological or market
changes;
(E) have achieved their goals and can be repealed without
target problems recurring;
(F) impose the greatest opportunity costs in terms of
economic growth;
(G) are ineffective;
(H) overlap, duplicate, or conflict with other Federal
regulations or with State or local regulations; or
(I) impose costs that are not justified by benefits
produced for society within the United States;
(2) reforming the process by which new regulations are made
by Federal agencies, including independent agencies, for the
purposes of--
(A) prioritizing early public outreach in the rulemaking
process;
(B) ensuring the use of the best available scientific,
economic, and technical data;
(C) preventing the misuse of guidance documents to skirt
public input;
(D) ensuring the use of best practices for regulatory
analysis, including cost-benefit analysis, into each step of
the rulemaking process;
(E) facilitating the adoption by Federal agencies of the
least costly regulatory alternative that would achieve the
goals of the statutory authorization;
(F) ensuring more careful consideration of proposed high-
cost rules;
(G) ensuring effective oversight of the Federal regulatory
program, including independent regulatory commissions, by the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs;
(H) improving the consideration of adverse impacts on small
businesses;
(I) providing greater transparency in the rulemaking
process; and
(J) improving compliance with section 515 of the Treasury
and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year
2001 (Public Law 106-554; 114 Stat. 2736A-153) (commonly
known as the ``Information Quality Act''), the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), and
chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as
the ``Regulatory Flexibility Act'');
(3) enhancing accountability by facilitating fair and
effective judicial review of agency actions; and
(4) ensuring that Congress can effectively exercise its
appropriate role in the regulatory process through
legislation and oversight;

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.

Amendment No. 1025

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to H-1B
visas)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO H-1B
VISAS.

Amendment No. 533

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
ensuring that Department of Justice attorneys comply with disclosure
obligations in criminal prosecutions)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO ENSURING
THAT DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ATTORNEYS COMPLY
WITH DISCLOSURE OBLIGATIONS IN CRIMINAL
PROSECUTIONS.

Amendment No. 984

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
ensuring that patients, including military members and veterans, have
access to new antibacterial drugs that treat serious or life-
threatening infections through the creation by the Food and Drug
Administration of a limited population approval pathway for
antibacterial drugs)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A LIMITED POPULATION APPROVAL
FOR ANTIBACTERIAL DRUGS.

Amendment No. 535

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
balancing the Federal budget)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO BALANCING
THE FEDERAL BUDGET.

[[Page S1998]]

the beginning of such fiscal year, 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 Vermont.

Amendments Nos. 1044, 1047, 724, 713, and 1005

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment to call up amendment No. 1044 on behalf of Senators
Cardin and McCain; and amendments Nos. 1047 and 724 on behalf of
Senator Kaine; amendment No. 713 on behalf of Senators Murphy and
Cassidy; and amendment No. 1005 on behalf of Senators Murphy and
Graham.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are called up en bloc.
The clerk will report the amendments by number en bloc.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], for other Members,
proposes amendments numbered 1044, 1047, 724, 713, and 1005
en bloc.

The amendments are as follows:

Amendment No. 1044

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
imposing sanctions with respect to foreign persons responsible for
gross violations of internationally recognized human rights or
significant acts of corruption)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO IMPOSING
SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO FOREIGN PERSONS
RESPONSIBLE FOR GROSS VIOLATIONS OF
INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED HUMAN RIGHTS OR
SIGNIFICANT ACTS OF CORRUPTION.

Amendment No. 1047

(Purpose: To provide for sequestration replacement)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO REVISE OR
REPEAL SEQUESTRATION.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels and limits in this
resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions,
amendments, amendments between the Houses, motions, or
conference reports that amend section 251(c) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 or the
enforcement procedures under section 251A of that Act to
revise or repeal the discretionary spending limits and
enforcement procedures established under those sections,
relating to providing relief from sequestration and the
reduction in discretionary spending limits for fiscal years
2016 and 2017, split evenly between both the revised security
category and the revised nonsecurity category, and offsetting
such relief through targeted changes in mandatory or
discretionary spending programs and tax expenditures by the
amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes,
provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit
over the period of the total of fiscal years 2016 through
2025. For purposes of determining deficit-neutrality under
this section, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of
the Senate may include the estimated effects of any amendment
or amendments to the discretionary spending limits.
At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. ADJUSTMENTS FOR SEQUESTRATION REPLACEMENT.

(a) Mechanism for Implementing Increase in Discretionary
Limits.--If a measure becomes law that amends the
discretionary spending limits established under section
251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(c)), the adjustments to
discretionary spending limits under section 251(b) of that
Act (2 U.S.C. 901(b)), or the enforcement procedures
established under section 251A of that Act (2 U.S.C. 901a),
the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
shall adjust the allocation called for in section 302(a) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633(a)) to the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, and may adjust all
other budgetary aggregates, allocations, levels, and limits
contained in this resolution, as necessary, consistent with
such measure, up to the amounts specified and reserved in
subparagraph (b).
(b) Amounts Specified and Reserved.--The amounts specified
(and to be reserved from the allocation called for in section
302(a) allocation of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2
U.S.C. 633(a)) to the Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate until such time as the conditions specified in
subsection (a) are met are--
(1) for fiscal year 2016--
(A) for the revised security category, $37,000,000,000 in
budget authority (and the outlays flowing therefrom); and
(B) for the revised nonsecurity category, $37,000,000,000
in budget authority (and the outlays flowing therefrom); and
(2) for fiscal year 2017--
(A) for the revised security category, $37,000,000,000 in
budget authority (and the outlays flowing therefrom); and
(B) for the revised nonsecurity category, $37,000,000,000
in budget authority (and the outlays flowing therefrom).

Amendment No. 724

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
increasing United States exports and improving the competitiveness of
United States businesses)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO INCREASING
UNITED STATES EXPORTS AND IMPROVING THE
COMPETITIVENESS OF UNITED STATES BUSINESSES.

Amendment No. 713

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
comprehensive mental health reform)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO
COMPREHENSIVE MENTAL HEALTH REFORM.

Amendment No. 1005

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to
expanding United States counter-propaganda communications to combat
misinformation from the Russian Federation or terrorist groups like
ISIS and al Qaeda)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR INTERNATIONAL STRATEGIC
COMMUNICATIONS.

Amendment No. 839

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote
on Isakson amendment No. 839
The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, amendment No. 839 recognizes that on
November 4, 1979, 52 brave Americans were taken hostage in Tehran,
Iran. They were beaten, they were held in captivity, they were
tortured.
Finally, the Algerian accords were negotiated, and they were released
in January of 1981. But in the Algerian accords, they were prohibited
from ever being compensated by litigation against the nation of Iran.

[[Page S1999]]

Now, with the sanction money flowing into the U.S. Treasury and into
the State Department, the money is there to compensate these brave
individuals, of which there are 44 still remaining alive.
This amendment acknowledges that Congress has the responsibility that
the Supreme Court dedicated to make sure these people get compensated
for the bravery they exhibited for the United States of America in
captivity.
I urge that this amendment be adopted.
I recognize the Senator from New Jersey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I strongly support Senator Isakson's
efforts here, which passed in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
last year, working with the State Department, and moved unanimously to
approve this bill.
This is to give 52 Americans, who were held hostage in Iran and
denied the opportunity to seek redress for their terrible ordeal, that
opportunity. The only way we are going to give them that opportunity
for the 444 days that their families were held hostage in Iran, is to
have this type of action.
I look forward to working with them, not just today but beyond, to
get it passed so we can get these American families their justice.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Georgia for
his leadership on this issue. He and I have cosponsored a bill that
achieved this goal.
This amendment is vitally important to advance public awareness and
make our colleagues more aware of the importance of this very
significant issue. I thank him for his leadership.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Isakson
amendment.
The amendment (No. 839) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1072

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate prior to a
vote on the Stabenow amendment, No. 1072.
The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to ask support for the Stabenow-
Cantwell amendment.
This addresses the cuts to the budget in Medicare. Medicare is a
universal health care program, as we know. It is a great American
success story. Everybody believes that.
It protects Americans from having their life savings wiped out by a
single illness. It guarantees important medical care and quality of
life for literally tens of millions of people across our country.
I was very disappointed yesterday that our Republican colleagues
voted against providing a point of order that would allow us to object
to efforts to privatize Medicare or cut benefits or raise out-of-pocket
costs for prescription drugs or preventive services. But as a result of
that, we now have in front of us a budget that calls for $435 billion
in cuts to Medicare.
We all know there are ways to work together to create savings through
efficiencies and quality measures and other things, but we should not
be telling a generation of seniors, and those coming beyond them--who
worked hard their whole lives and paid into the programs--that they
will not have the health care they need and deserve.
So I ask colleagues to join with us in rejecting the $435 billion in
Medicare cuts that are in this budget resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote no.
In the committee, Senator Stabenow heard several different versions
of this amendment. None of them passed muster with the Parliamentarian.
I credit the Senator's instincts to approach the question of Medicare
seriously. I am sure she knows we all take Medicare seriously. Why does
the budget resolution have the numbers that it has? Because the
Republicans and the President agree that we have to act on policies
which extend the life of the Medicare trust fund.
The budget does this by adopting the President's goal of extending
the life of Medicare's hospital insurance, HI trust fund, by at least 5
years.
While Republicans and the President share the goals of a financially
stronger Medicare Program, the Republican budget empowers the Senate
Finance Committee, the committee of jurisdiction, to determine how best
to extend the life of the trust fund and solve the program's grave
financial challenges. Many people have concerns about what the
administration has proposed with this new Medicare policy. I do, too,
and expect that the Finance Committee, working on a bipartisan basis
and in cooperation with the House, can craft a solid, successful
legislation to save Medicare from insolvency.
I ask for a ``no'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Stabenow
amendment.
Ms. STABENOW. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 54, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 111 Leg.]

YEAS--46

NAYS--54

Amendment No. 689

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote
on Portman amendment No. 689.
The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, this amendment is a commonsense reform
that allows the Joint Committee on Taxation to provide an accurate
score to those of us in the Senate.
Right now we get a static score only, and everybody knows it is not
wise to just have a static score, because it doesn't take into account
the effect of tax changes on the economy.
I think everyone in the Chamber would agree there is some impact on
the economy. We have to know what it is. This is informational. We will
still get the static score, but also get a macroeconomic score.
The Joint Committee on Taxation already does the analysis. So they
have the information, they are just not allowed to share it with you. I
would think everybody in this Chamber should support this.
In the underlying bill, there is already also a macroeconomic
analysis on the spending side, which is something new. So spending and
taxes will both be analyzed. We will have the macroeconomic score.
The last time we talked about this a couple years ago on the floor,
we got a majority vote--some Democrats, all the Republicans. I hope we
will get a bipartisan vote today. I think it only makes sense for us to
have the best information possible to be able to do the best tax reform
possible, for instance, to be sure it does focus on economic growth,
jobs, and rising wages.
I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, dynamic scoring is nothing more than an
accounting gimmick that makes tax cuts appear at least partly pay for
themselves. It is an attempt to make it seem like the failed policies
of trickledown economics work, but we know better.
According to the CBO, the Bush tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 are
responsible

[[Page S2000]]

for more than 13 percent of the increase in our national debt from 2001
to 2011.
Tax cuts did not grow the economy; they just grew our debt. The fuzzy
math of dynamic scoring may get to a different answer, but the reality
is that tax cuts for large profitable corporations and the wealthiest
Americans do not pay for themselves. They just make the rich richer.
Once again, Republicans are opting for accounting gimmicks to cover
up their real intentions. Dynamic scoring will rig the scoring process
in favor of legislation that benefits those who are already doing very
well.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time remaining.
The question is on agreeing to the Portman amendment.
Mr. SANDERS. 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 bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 41, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 112 Leg.]

YEAS--59

NAYS--41

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Klobuchar
Leahy
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
The amendment (No. 689) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 632

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rubio). There is now 2 minutes of debate
prior to a vote on Amendment No. 632.
The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I am honored to be working on this
amendment with Senator Shaheen and Senator Murray. This amendment will
create a deficit-neutral reserve fund to support efforts to prevent
employment discrimination against pregnant workers.
In the United States today, for so many years, we have had a standard
set forth in the Americans with Disabilities Act, reasonable
accommodations for those with disabilities. The same should apply to
pregnant workers.
We had a Supreme Court case decision just yesterday. Peggy Young was
victorious, but the result is that there is no predictable standard for
pregnant workers in the workplace. We need a standard so employees know
what their rights are and so employers can follow the law.

I yield for my colleague Senator Shaheen.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, this is about ensuring that women are
not discriminated against because they want to have children. This is
making sure that women don't have to choose between their jobs and
their families. It is about ensuring that all women can be reassured
that if they are pregnant, their employer has to provide reasonable
accommodations.
I hope my colleagues will vote for this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I want to declare that Republicans are
committed to fair and equal treatment of pregnant women as well.
Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in 1978 and passed the
Family and Medical Leave Act in 1993. Congress may need to enact this
specific legislation through committee in order to address this issue.
This amendment does confirm the ability of the committee of
jurisdiction to draft legislation. We would be happy to accept this on
a voice vote.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I request a rollcall vote and ask for the
yeas and nays.
Mr. ENZI. A rollcall vote has been requested.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the Casey amendment No. 632.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I urge the Republicans to vote aye.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 113 Leg.]

YEAS--100

Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
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
The amendment (No. 632) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 607

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate prior to a
vote on Thune amendment No. 607.
The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise in support of my amendment No. 607,
to create a deficit-neutral reserve fund to repeal the Federal estate
tax, better known as the death tax.
My amendment will put the Senate on record in support of eliminating
this destructive and ill-conceived tax on American families in their
time of grief. It has often been said but it is worth repeating: A
death in the family should not be a taxable event.
I agree wholeheartedly with a piece in the newspaper earlier this
week by Harry Alford, president of the National Black Chamber of
Commerce, who writes that the death tax ``disproportionately hampers
minority and women-owned businesses across the country'' and ``creates
an unfair situation for minority businesses which have finally started
to accumulate wealth within the last 60 years.''
The death tax also hits farmers particularly hard.
According to USDA statistics on cropland values, a significant
percentage of farms in my State of South Dakota and States such as
North Dakota, Montana, Illinois, Indiana, Colorado, Minnesota, Florida,
and Missouri remain subject to this double tax even at the higher
estate tax exception limit.
Incremental relief from this unfair tax is not enough. The time has
come for full repeal. I urge support for my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this amendment is not about family farms
or small business. This amendment benefits exclusively the wealthiest
three-tenths of 1 percent of the families in this country--the very,
very wealthiest people--and 99.7 percent of the families in America
will not benefit by 1 nickel. By the way, for those concerned about the
deficit, this will cost us $250 billion over a 10-year period.
Ironically, the Republican budget raises taxes for lower income
families

[[Page S2001]]

who are on the earned-income tax credit program and the children's tax
credit program. So what we are doing now is giving tax breaks to
billionaires in the same bill that we are raising taxes for low-income
working families, and adding significantly to the deficit.
I think this should be a ``no'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. THUNE. 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.
The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 46, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 114 Leg.]

YEAS--54

NAYS--46

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
The amendment (No. 607) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1014

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate on the Bennet
amendment No. 1014.
Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, this amendment is very straightforward.
The purpose reads ``. . . responding to the economic and national
security threats posed by human-induced climate change, as highlighted
by the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, the
Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and
the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.''
The amendment establishes a deficit-neutral reserve fund to promote
national security, economic growth, and public health by addressing
climate change through the increased use of clean energy, the
deployment of energy efficiency, and the reduction of carbon pollution.
That is it. That is all it is--simply a statement of all the facts
and the suggestions of three common strategies to address the issue.
Climate change is a serious threat to the world, to our country, and
to Colorado. Ask anyone whose farm or ranch depends on water from the
Colorado River or one of its tributaries.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senators time has expired.
Mr. BENNET. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, just Wednesday of this week, the new
annual Gallup poll came out. It said very clearly that among the six
environmental concerns the Gallup poll included in its survey, global
warming polled at the very bottom, right after the loss of the tropical
rainforests, I might add. Gallup also found that a majority believe
that the seriousness of global warming is overstated.
The Obama administration and others on this side like to claim 97
percent of the world's scientists believe in manmade global warming.
Monday's Wall Street Journal op-ed debunked the 97 percent and the
survey represents the views of only 79 respondents out of 3,149.
Lastly, the agencies they are talking about that claim that 2014 was
the warmest year on record, such as NASA--NASA now has reduced that to
38 percent. They have retreated from that position. So the people have
caught on to this hysteria, and I ask colleagues to oppose the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
No. 1014.
Mr. INHOFE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 115 Leg.]

YEAS--53

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

NAYS--47

Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Grassley
Hatch
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Lankford
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Perdue
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
The amendment (No. 1014) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 836

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate on McConnell
amendment No. 836.
The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I believe the next amendment is No.
836.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. McCONNELL. Let me just say to my colleagues that this is an
amendment which ought to pass 100 to 0. Let me tell you why. The
Administrator of EPA just testified within the last couple of weeks
that she does not have the authority under the Clean Power Plan to cut
off State roads and bridges funds.
So today, with my friends from Kentucky and Oklahoma, I have offered
an amendment that is really quite simple. It says that Washington
bureaucrats should not be allowed to punish innocent Americans by
threatening the roads and bridges they use just because a citizen's
State may take a wait-and-see approach--a wait-and-see approach--as
courts rule on massive EPA regulations. These are regulations which
would threaten the middle class without having a meaningful impact on
the global climate.
The legal issues here will resolve themselves eventually. But
whatever our party or ideology, we should be able to agree that the
Federal Government should not be punishing hard-working families just
to score political points as States await legal clarification.
Let me say it again. The Administrator of the EPA does not believe
she has the authority to do this. We need to make it clear that the
Senate opposes any step in that direction.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to amendment No. 836,
which seeks to undercut the President's Clean Power Plan to address
climate change and reduce dangerous carbon pollution.
The year 2014 was the single most dangerous year ever recorded in
terms of temperatures, the warmest in history. NOAA and NASA continue
to chronicle this ever-worsening warming planet. Not only will the
President's power plan reduce greenhouse gasses, but it will also
reduce the amount of pollution that leads to dangerous smog-related
diseases that are contracted by Americans all across our planet.

[[Page S2002]]

Instead of debating this amendment, we should be debating the way to
reduce the impacts of dangerous greenhouse gases on our planet.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The question is on agreeing to
the McConnell amendment No. 836.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 43, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 116 Leg.]

YEAS--57

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
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
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
The amendment (No. 836) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 842

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote
on Merkley amendment No. 842.
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
has returned $5 million to American citizens victimized by predatory
scams and unscrupulous practices. If you support ending victimization
of our citizens, support this bill. If you support creditors, then vote
against it.
I yield to my colleague from Delaware.
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senator Merkley in
advancing this amendment. It is important we continue to have a strong
and effective CFPB to protect consumers and ensure transparency and
fairness in our financial marketplace.
I urge an ``aye'' vote by my colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this
amendment. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is, and always has
been, an agency with excessive independence. The agency actually steals
funding from the Federal Reserve before it goes to the Federal
Government, which takes away from our general fund. There is no control
over any part of that agency.
Once it had a Director a year ago, we said there needed to be an
inspector general taking a look at this problem. But the inspector
general said he has no access to the records, even though he works
there.
So this is an agency that is out of control. It is time for us to
gain control over the agency, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Merkley
amendment.
Mr. MERKLEY. 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.
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 54, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 117 Leg.]

YEAS--46

NAYS--54

Amendment No. 443

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote
on the Gardner amendment No. 443.
The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, this amendment does a very simple thing.
It protects State water rights. It creates a deficit-neutral reserve
fund to make sure we are protecting privately held water rights from
intrusion by the U.S. Forest Service or the ski area water rule, and it
makes sure we are keeping private water rights held safe from
groundwater rules by the U.S. Forest Service.
This is an effort to make sure we are protecting private water
rights, preventing bypass flows, and making sure we are doing
everything we can to make sure that State water law is the imminent
feature of our water in this country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, the Gardner amendment would radically
change the way water is handled on public lands. There are real
concerns about how Federal land management agencies deal with water,
particularly in the drought-afflicted West. But this amendment is so
broad that it is trying to address these problems in a way that will
have numerous unintended consequences. It would make even worse some of
the water shortages in the areas of the West, particularly in the Lower
Colorado Basin. It would also create havoc in our national parks in
both the East and the West.
The amendment would call into question the status of water contracts
actually signed by the Bureau of Reclamation throughout the West.
Uncertainty is the last thing we need. It would have damaging
implications for settlements such as the Yakima Basin where people have
come to agreement.
I agree we need to continue to work on the drought issues in the
West. But saying that Federal management agencies don't have their
obligations, such as helping in the national forests with
firefighters----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Ms. CANTWELL. I urge a ``no'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, once again, this is about water rights.
This is about making sure we protect State-held water rights.
It is a very clear contrast. If you believe water rights should be
managed by the Federal Government, then vote against the amendment. But
if you believe private water rights are under State law, managed by
State law, decided by State law, then vote for this amendment.
Let's protect our private water rights. Let's keep our law clear--
that this matter belongs in the hands of the States and not in the
hands of the Federal Government.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Gardner
amendment No. 443.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 41, as follows:

[[Page S2003]]

[Rollcall Vote No. 118 Leg.]

YEAS--59

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

NAYS--41

Baldwin
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
The amendment (No. 443) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 951

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes of debate prior to the vote
on the Murray amendment No. 951.
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as a former preschool teacher, I have
seen firsthand the kind of transformation that early learning can
inspire in a child. I believe we should be investing more in our
children, not less. So today I am offering an amendment to expand
access to early childhood education so more kids can start kindergarten
ready to learn. This amendment would expand high-quality early learning
opportunities for low- and moderate-income 3- and 4-year-olds and build
on the investments that Governors and legislators across the country,
regardless of party affiliation, are already making to improve early
learning opportunities through public-private partnerships. It is fully
paid for by closing wasteful tax loopholes. I hope our colleagues can
support this critical amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this
amendment. All of us know there is a great value to pre-school, and the
Federal Government already spends as much as $20 billion per year on
early childhood programs, including Head Start. This amendment would
call for $66 billion over 10 years, so it is just $6.6 billion per
year. But we already spend $20 billion, which is almost as much as we
spend on kindergarten through 12th grade. How many programs do we need?
We have 45 at the moment.
One year ago, when we reauthorized the child development block grant,
I offered an amendment to reduce the number of programs to five and put
them all under one agency. That would save enough money to do this.
Elementary and secondary education will be marked up, I think, when we
get back. That committee process would be the appropriate place to
consider this proposal, not in the budget. I would ask for a ``no''
vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Murray
amendment No. 951.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 54, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 119 Leg.]

YEAS--46

NAYS--54

Amendment No. 763

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote
on Graham amendment No. 763.
The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am going to withdraw this amendment, but
before I do, I will take a couple of minutes to explain what it would
do and what awaits us.
Most Members of the body don't understand, I think, that there are
160 programs which are exempt from sequestration. Our pay is exempt
from sequestration, as is Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, food stamps, most
all of Medicare, all of Medicaid, and the Veterans' Administration. The
military, the intel community, and NIH have had devastating cuts, but
we don't include our own pay. At the end of the day, how can we justify
making sure we take care of the veterans, but we are putting those who
are serving our country in the fight today at risk?
So I will withdraw this amendment for now because I think we are
about to get some reason regarding sequestration, but if we don't, I
will have an amendment for each of the 160 programs, starting with our
pay. We need to feel the pain we are inflicting on other people.
I will withdraw this amendment for now, hoping we can fix
sequestration, but if not, we need to take a look at the entire
government and let others feel the pain, not just those who wear the
uniform and are doing the work this country needs to have done.

Amendment No. 763 Withdrawn

With that, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is withdrawn.

Amendment No. 825

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote
on the Blumenthal amendment No. 825.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, this amendment helps to keep faith
with our veterans and to make sure we leave no veteran behind by
reflecting and responding to their voices and the message they have
given us about the need for more and better health care relating to
post-traumatic stress, treatment for military sexual trauma, and an
improvement in the delivery of health care for them around the country.
It also improves the job training and rehabilitation programs for our
veterans and makes sure, among other provisions, there is greater
accountability and more funds and support for the inspector general of
the VA so we can avoid the kinds of gaps and egregious shortcomings we
have seen in this past year and also improve the Choice Program this
Congress passed.
I urge my colleagues to join me in this bipartisan amendment.
I thank Senator Moran and Senator Baldwin for their support and
cosponsorship and urge that we keep faith with our Nation's heroes and
leave no veteran behind.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, we are willing to take this on a voice vote.
We yield back all time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
The question is on agreeing to the Blumenthal amendment No. 825.
The amendment (No. 825) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 665

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote
on the Flake amendment No. 665.

[[Page S2004]]

The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, in 2009, the President signed Executive
Order 13502, which states that it is the policy of the Federal
Government to encourage executive agencies to consider requiring the
use of PLAs, or project labor agreements, in connection with large-
scale construction projects.
This Executive order did not mandate the use of PLAs. However, some
Federal agencies have interpreted that order to require it, and so all
this amendment does is take it back to what the law intended--that the
Federal Government is neutral with regard to the awarding of contracts,
allowing the free market to work its will, and deliver to taxpayers the
best possible product at the best possible price.
I urge adoption of the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Flake amendment--and Senator Flake is
my friend--strikes the project labor agreement option.
What is a project labor agreement? It is only awarded to a company
after they win the competitive bid. So they have to come in with a low
competitive bill.
What does a project labor agreement contain? How much it is going to
cost, what wages will be paid, and how disputes will be settled. The
net result is that projects cost less and they are done on time.
Why would we want to eliminate the possibility of saving taxpayers
money with project labor agreements? I hope my colleagues will vote no
so we can put the money we are going to save from the Flake amendment
into some important investments in America.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if I could have the attention of all
Senators. At the rate we are going, we could be here until 5 a.m. in
the morning, so I think it is a good time to seek some cooperation.
We have a number of amendments lined up here where sponsors will take
a voice vote in the tranche we are working on now. If there are any
Senators who are not in the current tranche and would like to be
considered, I recommend that those Senators come over here and talk to
the budget staff and see if we can't take some of them and do it by a
voice vote and see if we can move through this process so we can get
out of here at a reasonable hour.
I ask my friend the Democratic leader to give us a view of the status
on the Democratic side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from South Carolina set a good
example by withdrawing his amendment. That is really what the standard
should be. Senator Blumenthal was second best when he said he would
take a voice vote. The only disagreement I would have with my friend
the Republican leader is that if we go through all of these amendments
that are pending, it will take 33 more hours. That is the math. That is
the truth. We need to move on.

Remember, this budget resolution is a statement of policy. It is not
the law. We can say ``I gotcha'' on this one, ``we gotcha'' on that
one, but that is--we have done that now for 8 hours or whatever it is.
I really do agree with the Republican leader. The staff has worked so
hard. They haven't worked just today and yesterday and this week; they
have been working for weeks to get us to the position where we are
tonight. I know the Republican leader bought dinner tonight, and I
appreciate that very much. But if we can get finished here by 11:30, I
will buy dinner when we get back, and it will be better than that.
So we have had an ample vote-arama. For all the new Members, they see
what it is like. The time has come for Senators to show some restraint.
No one's election is going to be determined--I say that to the world.
No one's election is going to be determined by what is taking place
here tonight--no election. I defy anyone to show me in any of these
vote-aramas where a vote has made any difference. And we are witnesses
to that, and I can testify to that. One time, to show my colleagues how
meaningless these votes are, we voted against prisoners being able to
have Viagra in prison. We actually voted on that. No one lost an
election. By the way, it was defeated.
So let's--we can go through all of the Viagra amendments and do all
of these things to embarrass each other, but that isn't what we should
be doing. The time has come to forgo pressing amendments to votes
altogether.
It has been very dignified. Earlier today, I said how proud I am of
the two managers of this legislation. They have totally different
political outlooks, but they have been gentlemen to each other and
gentlemen to each of us.
So I hope we can move forward as quickly as possible. The agreement
for the dinner was not a Las Vegas bet; it is something I will do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I will just add, we will finish
tonight, and it might help us move quicker, in addition to having voice
votes on a lot of amendments, if we sit at our own desks and see if we
can just get through this as rapidly as possible without denying anyone
their rights.
So I recommend we go ahead, whatever the next amendment is.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Flake
amendment.
Mr. FLAKE. 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.
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 120 Leg.]

YEAS--51

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

NAYS--49

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Daines
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
The amendment (No. 665) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 475

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate prior to
a vote on the Sanders Amendment No. 475.
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. This amendment establishes a deficit-neutral fund to
prevent the U.S. Postal Service from----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. SANDERS. This deficit-neutral reserve fund would prevent the
Postal Service from shutting down 82 processing plants in 37 States. It
would restore delivery standards which have been slowed down and
protect rural postal services.
The Postal Service is vital to the well-being of our Nation and
economy. This is especially true in our rural areas. This is an issue
that has had bipartisan support for the last number of years.
Senator Collins is a cosponsor of this amendment. She has been very
active on this issue, and I would hope we could pass it with a voice
vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. I want to thank Senator Collins for all of her efforts in
this area and Senator Sanders for making this a bipartisan amendment,
and I would ask to accept this on a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Sanders
amendment No. 475.
The amendment (No. 475) was agreed to.

[[Page S2005]]

Amendment No. 1029

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate prior to a
vote on the Hatch amendment No. 1029.
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1029 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, no one believes in tax policy that has the
effect of shipping jobs overseas.
My amendment, which is cosponsored by Senator Wyden--a true
bipartisan amendment--goes right to the heart of what amendment No. 523
of my friend from Michigan and amendment No. 817 of my friend from
Illinois claimed to be doing.
Tax policy leaders of all ideological stripes agree on a key point.
The U.S. corporate tax rate is the highest among our trading partners
and is making American firms less competitive, thereby hurting American
workers.
My amendment would put in place a deficit-neutral reserve fund to
bring the corporate rate down and to prevent the bleeding of U.S. jobs.
Vote for it to preserve and grow U.S. jobs.
I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment, as I
understand it, is to prevent American jobs from being moved overseas. I
think if we are serious about this, we may want to change our
disastrous trade policies, which have led to the shutdown of thousands
of factories in this country and millions of decent-paying jobs. In my
view, at a time when we have an $18 trillion national debt, the last
thing we need to do is to cut corporate taxes on profitable
corporations that in many cases pay little or nothing in Federal taxes.
We have major corporation after major corporation making billions of
dollars. They pay zero in Federal income taxes. I don't quite know how
you can lower their taxes below zero. We need real tax reform in this
country that ends corporate loopholes that is costing us well over $100
billion a year.
So I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I think the Senator, through the Chair,
would yield to me for a moment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time remaining.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
distinguished Senator from Oregon be given 30 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I support this
amendment.
President Obama favors lowering this tax rate, and I believe the
reason he does is because he thinks this will provide another
opportunity to reduce offshoring. I support the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Since this is bipartisan, I would hope we would take this
by voice vote. And it is the chairman and ranking member of the
committees who have to do the work.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
No. 1029.
The amendment (No. 1029) was agreed to.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, yesterday, I corrected the record on the
matter of tax expenditures. That statement focused on individual income
tax expenditures. According to 2014 Congressional Budget Office data,
the individual income tax accounts for 47.1 percent of federal revenue.
By contrast, the corporate income tax accounts for 11.9 percent of
federal revenue. Today I am going to discuss corporate tax
expenditures.
The Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress's nonpartisan official tax
scorekeeper, provides scoring and analysis of corporate tax
expenditures. What are corporate tax expenditures? In a general sense,
they are departures from a regular income tax. A regular income tax
records income and provides deductions for expenses related to
producing income to arrive at net income. Tax benefits in the form of
exclusions, deductions, and credits not connected to the generation of
business income are generally treated as corporate tax expenditures. As
the tax-writing committee hearings have shown, our business tax system
is overloaded with subsidies and other complex special provisions.
Those deviations from basic measures of net income can result in
economic inefficiencies, slow growth, and an economy that produces
fewer jobs than it otherwise would. From a revenue-neutral standpoint,
the flip side of that narrower, less-efficient tax base is a higher
than optimal tax rate. It is a matter of broad-based consensus of
senior tax policymakers from the left to the right that there is a
``two-fer'' in broadening the tax base and lowering the rate. This
applies to both corporate businesses and noncorporate businesses.
To the extent Congress delays translating the bipartisan goal of a
broader business base and lower rates into concrete policy, the dangers
of further inversion transactions and foreign takeovers looms on the
economic horizon. My friends on the left side of the political spectrum
should be the most concerned. Why? The reason is the local economies
most vulnerable to inversions and foreign takeovers of U.S.-based
businesses are in business sectors that dominate in the high cost-of-
living, high-tax so-called ``Blue States.'' I am referring to the high-
tech, pharmaceutical, and other cutting-edge intellectual property
producing business sectors. Those business sectors tend to be based in
high-cost, high-tax blue States. My friends on the other side should be
very sensitive to threats to their local economies.
For that reason, I continue to be stunned to see many of most liberal
friends on the other side take positions on this budget resolution that
are at odds with the goal of tax reform. Cherry-picking corporate tax
expenditures to use for new spending, if it were to become viable
policy, would starve the resources for tax reform. If my friends on the
other side were to prevail on this strategy, you could forget about the
bipartisan goal of broadening the business tax base and lowering tax
rates. Their policy positions, if enacted, would leave tax policymakers
with no resources to engage in reform. In fact, a broader U.S. tax base
with rates that are already too high would make U.S.-based businesses
less competitive. The tax baggage of being a U.S.-based business would
grow, further tipping the balance toward foreign control by inversions
and takeovers.
The debate on corporate tax expenditures isn't about the merits of
those policies. That debate on the merits of corporate tax expenditures
could, should, and will be joined in legislating tax reform. That is a
bipartisan goal for a bipartisan policy result that is necessary to
build a stronger American economy.

Amendment No. 1063

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior
to a vote on the Schatz amendment No. 1063.
The Senator from Hawaii.

Amendment No. 1063, as Modified

Mr. SCHATZ. I ask unanimous consent that my amendment No. 1063 be
modified with the changes at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO ENSURING
EQUAL TREATMENT OF MARRIED COUPLES UNDER THE
SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAM AND BY THE DEPARTMENT
OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

Mr. SCHATZ. All legally married, same-sex couples deserve equal
treatment under the law, regardless of

[[Page S2006]]

where they live. But right now, eligibility for spousal benefits
provided under the Social Security Act and by the Department of
Veterans Affairs is determined by a place-of-residence standard. That
means that legally married same-sex couples who move to a State that
doesn't recognize same-sex marriage could be denied Social Security and
veterans survivor benefits.
Plain and simple, this is wrong, and this doesn't reflect our
American values. This amendment will fix this and provide equal
protection under the law and the Social Security and veterans benefits
that gay Americans have earned. I would be happy to entertain a voice
vote in support of this amendment if the majority is amenable.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, it has come to my attention that is not
going to be possible on this amendment.
Again, this is a statement that has to be handled by the committee of
jurisdiction and has no real effect. So I would ask that everybody vote
``no'' on this one.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Schatz
amendment No. 1063, as modified.
Mr. SCHATZ. 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.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 57, nays 43, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 121 Leg.]

YEAS--57

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

NAYS--43

Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Lankford
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Perdue
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
The amendment (No. 1063), as modified, was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1038

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). There is 2 minutes of debate prior
to a vote on Kirk amendment No. 1038.
Who yields time?
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Illinois, we
are offering an alternative to the Sanders amendment that failed
earlier today. The Sanders amendment called for a substantial increase
in the minimum wage, an action that the Congressional Budget Office has
told us could kill up to 1 million jobs.
The Kirk amendment takes a different approach. It reaffirms the
ability of the individual States to raise the minimum wage above the
Federal level, but only if they choose to do so at their own volition.
It also calls for policies that will result in higher wages for all
Americans, progrowth tax relief and the elimination of burdensome
mandates such as ObamaCare.
I urge my colleagues to support the Kirk amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Frankly, I don't quite understand this amendment. This
is what it says: This amendment would ``establish a deficit-neutral
reserve fund'' to reaffirm that States can raise minimum wage while
providing tax relief and eliminating excessive government mandates.
States do not need permission from the Federal Government to raise
the minimum wage. In fact, 29 States have already raised the minimum
wage. And in the last election, when that question was on the ballot in
four States, all four of those States voted to raise the minimum wage.
People all over this country want us to raise the Federal minimum
wage, which is now a starvation wage of $7.25 an hour.
So this amendment, quite frankly, does not make a whole lot of sense
to me. I would hope it will be defeated.
States are looking to the Federal Government to raise the minimum
wage. We don't have to tell them what to do. They are doing just fine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this amendment is a reaffirmation of the
10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
I ask for the support of our colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. CORNYN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 43, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 122 Leg.]

YEAS--57

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Carper
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
King
Kirk
Lankford
Lee
McCain
McCaskill
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
Casey
Coons
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
The amendment (No. 1038) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.

Amendment No. 944

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 944.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
There is 2 minutes of debate on the amendment.
The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, this is an amendment to call a point of
order on any legislation that would attempt to muzzle Federal employees
in using any scientific language that calls a change--scientific
language that would apply to oceans, to weather, to the climate, and to
atmospheres.
This is an attempt to make clear that we do not agree with muzzling
or censoring Federal agencies or Federal employees when it comes to
employing their scientific knowledge.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, this amendment is not germane to the budget
resolution. It creates a point of order concerning subject matter that
is not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget,
prohibiting Federal employees or agencies from exercising their freedom
of speech by prohibiting using terms from atmospheric scientific
literature.
While I know many of my colleagues have strong opinions on this
topic, it is not appropriate for inclusion in a budget resolution. In
fact, this amendment is corrosive. It damages the privilege of the
budget. Therefore, when debate time expires I will raise a point of
order that this amendment is not germane to the budget resolution and I
encourage my colleagues to sustain it.

[[Page S2007]]

I guess that probably concludes the debate.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida has 7 seconds
remaining.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, this is an issue of freedom of speech,
First Amendment rights. This is in fact--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, amendment No. 944 is not germane to the
budget resolution now before the Senate. Therefore, I raise a point of
order against the amendment under section 305(b)(2) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I move to waive, 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.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 123 Leg.]

YEAS--51

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

NAYS--49

Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kirk
Lankford
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 51, the nays are
49.
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 fails.

Amendment No. 360

There is 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote on the McCain amendment
No. 360.
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment is simple. It says that
children who show up at our border will not be allowed to stay. They
will be returned to the country they came from. Right now they are
being transported up by the lowest form of life that ever existed on
the Earth. Young women are being raped, people are being killed, people
are being molested, and the drug cartels are the ones that are bringing
them up. This has got to stop. They can go to the consulate and the
embassies in their countries--I am talking about the three Central
American countries, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua. But to have
the drug cartels and parents paying thousands of dollars to have them
transported up, many of the young women being raped on the way, is
unacceptable.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Amendment No. 360, as Modified

Mr. President, I have a modification at the desk and ask unanimous
consent that my amendment be modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO DETERRING
THE MIGRATION OF UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN FROM EL
SALVADOR, GUATEMALA, AND HONDURAS.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I did raise an objection to the change,
although I appreciate the fact that the Senator made that change.
I rise to oppose amendment No. 360 which would roll back critical
antitrafficking and humanitarian protections for children from Central
America. Last summer I led a congressional delegation to the Rio Grande
Valley border to view the humanitarian crisis of unaccompanied children
from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. Clearly, concrete cells at
Border Patrol stations are no place for children, which is where they
likely would be under the expedited deportation proceedings allowed
under this amendment. These young children are fleeing danger and
violence in their own home countries. It is also no answer to require
these children to seek asylum in their home countries while being
exposed to the very violence they are trying to escape in the first
place.
This is the portion of the amendment the Senator has eliminated. It
still doesn't leave out the part about expedited deportation. So let's
keep the current law in place that--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Ms. HIRONO. We voted for this law unanimously, signed by President
Bush. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment,
as modified.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 42, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 124 Leg.]

YEAS--58

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

NAYS--42

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
Klobuchar
Leahy
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
The amendment (No. 360), as modified, was agreed to.

Amendment No. 968

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote
on the Wyden amendment No. 968.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 968, and I urge
Senators to support this amendment because it will cut taxes on the
middle class and give millions of Americans a new ladder of economic
opportunity. This amendment rewards hard work, makes college more
affordable, and helps parents who have a tough time making ends meet.
Let's create a new path upward for the middle class and those who want
to be middle class. Support this amendment.
I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.

[[Page S2008]]

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, once again I have to ask my colleagues to
vote ``no.'' This is a tax reform idea that has some merit, but it has
to be dealt with in the context of comprehensive tax reform rather than
a stand-alone proposal. I know that he and his Finance Committee
chairman, Senator Hatch, are working on changing the Tax Code to
eliminate some of the overcomplicated, inefficient, and archaic
language, so we should address it in the committee of jurisdiction, not
in the budget.
Even though the amendment is deficit neutral, it is, again, telling a
committee what to do and how to do it, and it is even by the person who
has the capability to do that. So I would ask for a ``no'' vote.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the Wyden amendment No. 968.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 73, nays 27, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 125 Leg.]

YEAS--73

Ayotte
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coats
Collins
Coons
Corker
Crapo
Cruz
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gardner
Gillibrand
Grassley
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Hoeven
Johnson
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lee
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Portman
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sanders
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--27

Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Burr
Cassidy
Cochran
Cornyn
Cotton
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Hatch
Heller
Inhofe
Isakson
Kirk
Lankford
McConnell
Paul
Perdue
Rounds
Tillis
Vitter
Wicker
The amendment (No. 968) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 750, as Modified

=========================== NOTE ===========================

On page S2008, March 26, 2015, in the subhead in the middle
column, the following language appears: . . .Amendment No. 715, as
Modified

The online Record has been corrected to read: . . .Amendment No.
750, as Modified

========================= END NOTE =========================

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate prior to
a vote on the Lee amendment No. 750, as modified.

=========================== NOTE ===========================

On page S2008, March 26, 2015, in the middle column, the
following language appears: . . .Lee amendment No. 715, as
modified.

The online Record has been corrected to read: . . .Lee amendment
No. 750, as modified.

========================= END NOTE =========================

The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the Federal Government owns almost two-thirds
of the land in Utah and almost half of the land in the 11 coterminous
States in the Western United States. But unlike other property owners,
the Federal Government does not pay property tax. As a result, areas
with high concentrations of Federal land, such as most of Utah and most
of the Western United States, face budget shortfalls that affect the
ability of those States to fund critical education, transportation
infrastructure, and emergency services.
To help compensate local governments for this loss of property tax
revenue, the Federal Government created the PILT Program--PILT stands
for Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program--to provide some funding for these
revenue shortfalls.
Historically, PILT payments tend to represent just a tiny fraction,
just pennies on the dollar for what these jurisdictions could otherwise
collect in property tax revenue.
Now to correct the damage caused by this unfair system----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. LEE. I ask my colleagues to vote for this amendment which would
allow us to bring PILT into conformity with what these jurisdictions
would otherwise receive from taxation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment. While there are many of us who support full funding for
PILT, this amendment is impractical. In fact, the Congressional
Research Service reports indicate that attempts to set up tax
equivalency for PILT would be wrought with errors and gamesmanship.
That is because counties routinely tax different land uses at different
rates.
Second, my colleagues should note that this may increase PILT
payments more than 350 percent of today's authorized level, and that
would raise the cost of this program from $4 to $5 billion, to $15 to
$20 billion.
Because the amendment creates a spending-neutral reserve fund, only
cuts to other mandatory spending programs could be used to fund the 350
percent rise in payments.
So, Mr. President, I cannot support this amendment. It is
unsustainable and unworkable, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment,
as modified.
Ms. CANTWELL. 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. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs.
Feinstein) is necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 43, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 126 Leg.]

YEAS--56

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
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
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
King
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

Feinstein

The amendment (No. 750), as modified, was agreed to.