[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 54 (Wednesday, April 15, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2202-S2212]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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


                           Motion to Instruct

  Mr. SANDERS. I send to the desk my motion to instruct conferees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
pending motion?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] moves that the 
     managers on the part of the Senate at the conference on 
     the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House 
     amendment to the resolution S. Con. Res. 11 be instructed 
     to insist that the final conference report include the 
     provision in the concurrent resolution as agreed to by the 
     Senate that provides for the establishment of a deficit-
     neutral reserve fund related to strengthening the United 
     States Postal Service by establishing a moratorium to 
     protect mail processing plants, reinstating overnight 
     delivery standards, protecting rural service, allowing the 
     Postal Service to innovate and adapt to compete in a 
     digital age, or improving the financial condition of the 
     Postal Service.

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I move to instruct conferees on S. Con. 
Res. 11, a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2016, to 
include in the conference report the provision in the concurrent 
resolution as passed by the Senate establishing a deficit-neutral 
reserve fund related to strengthening the U.S. Postal Service by 
establishing a moratorium to protect mail processing plants, 
reinstating overnight delivery standards, and protecting rural 
services.
  During the so-called vote-arama, that amendment passed by voice vote. 
This time I hope we can get a strong rollcall vote on it because it is 
terribly important that we tell the Postmaster General of the United 
States that the U.S. Senate wants a strong and vibrant U.S. Postal 
Service.
  What we are saying to the Postmaster General of the United States is 
pretty simple; that is, do not destroy up to 15,000 middle-class jobs, 
do not shut down up to 82 mail processing plants, stop slowing down 
mail service delivery in this country. Speed it up by reinstating 
strong overnight delivery standards for first-class mail.
  I do not know about Arizona and I don't know about Wyoming, but I can 
tell you that in Vermont we have gotten a significant number of 
complaints from people who are upset by the slowdown of mail delivery 
standards. It is, to my mind, just unacceptable, and what we are saying 
now and will have to say in the months to come is you can't shut down 
another 82 processing plants, you cannot continue with these inadequate 
mail delivery standards, and it has to change. The American people and 
the business community are entitled to know that when they put a letter 
or document in the mail, it is going to get delivered in a prompt way. 
Today, that, sadly, is not the case.
  For over 230 years and enshrined in our Constitution, the Postal 
Service has played an enormously important role for the people of our 
country and for our economy, and that mission today remains as 
important as it has ever been. The beauty of the Postal Service is that 
it provides universal service 6 days a week to every corner of our 
country, no matter how small or how remote. It will deliver mail on 
Wall Street and it will deliver mail to a home at the end of a back 
road in the State of Vermont.
  The U.S. Postal Service supports, through its efforts, millions of 
jobs in virtually every sector of our economy. It provides decent-
paying union jobs to some 500,000 Americans and, by the way, is the 
largest employer of veterans in this country.
  Whether you are an elderly woman living on a dirt road in a rural 
area or you are a wealthy CEO executive on

[[Page S2203]]

Park Avenue, you get your mail delivered 6 days a week, and the 
American people pay for this service at a cost which is far less than 
any place else in the industrialized world. In other words, we get a 
pretty good bargain when we put a stamp on an envelope.
  Unfortunately, despite the success and popularity of the Postal 
Service, it is under constant attack and has been under constant attack 
for years, including from those who would like to privatize the Postal 
Service and ultimately destroy it. Let's be clear. The same people who 
are attacking the Postal Service are often the same people who are 
attacking Social Security, Medicare, and so forth, and they essentially 
want to move to the privatization of virtually every major public 
institution in this country.
  Today, the U.S. Postal Service is in the process of shutting down up 
to 82 mail processing plants and eliminating up to 15,000 decent-paying 
jobs. This is in addition to the 141 mail processing facilities that 
were closed between 2012 and 2013. In January, the Postal Service ended 
overnight delivery for first-class mail. It didn't get a whole lot of 
attention, but it happened.
  The purpose of this motion is to put the Senate on record in strong 
opposition to these plant closings and to demand that the Postal 
Service reinstate strong overnight delivery standards and not destroy 
good-paying jobs.
  We have been told that all of these horrendous cuts are necessary 
because the Postal Service is experiencing terrible financial problems. 
They are losing money every single year. Well, the truth is somewhat 
different. The major reason the Postal Service is in tough financial 
shape today is not because of email or the Internet, the major reason 
the Postal Service is hurting financially is because of a mandate 
signed into law by President Bush in December of 2006, during a 
lameduck session of Congress that forces the Postal Service to prefund 
75 years of future retiree health benefits over a 10-year period. No 
other government agency or business in America is burdened with a 
mandate anywhere close to what the Postal Service has to expend, which 
is $5.5 billion a year. So the main point is that when you see articles 
telling you the Postal Service is having financial problems, the main 
reason--the overwhelming reason--is this necessity to prefund 75 years 
of future retiring health benefits over a 10-year period at about $5.5 
billion a year. In fact, all--A-L-L--all of the so-called financial 
losses posted by the Postal Service since October 2012 are due to this 
prefunding mandate. That is it. Without that mandate, they would be 
making a modest amount of money.
  We don't hear much about it, but I think it is very important for the 
American people to understand the reality of the finances in the Postal 
Service. Excluding the prefunding mandate, the Postal Service has 
actually made a $1.8 billion profit. So it is a modestly profitable 
operation excluding the $5.5 billion prefunding mandate.
  Revenue at the Postal Service has been increasing in recent years. At 
a time when Postal Service revenue is going up, it makes no sense to 
eliminate thousands of jobs and slow down the mail service that 
millions of Americans rely on.
  We should be working to strengthen the Postal Service and not to send 
it into a death spiral. Before this prefunding mandate was signed into 
law, the Postal Service was also profitable. In fact, from 2003 to 
2006, the Postal Service made a combined profit of more than $5 
billion.
  I think there is broad bipartisan support, especially from Senators 
who come from rural areas and who understand just how important the 
Postal Service is to the people of our States.
  Once again, when offered as an amendment at the vote-arama, this 
passed by voice vote. We are going to ask for a rollcall vote when the 
voting takes place. I hope we win this vote with a very strong vote and 
send a message to the Postal Service that we want our Postal Service to 
provide the quality mail service the American people deserve.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, that passed by a voice vote, which is 
considered unanimous around here. You cannot get more unanimous than 
that. I am hoping that out of the 10 to 13 votes we are going to have 
this afternoon, that some can be done on voice votes. I do not think 
there is anybody who disagrees with what the Senator has said about 
closing the postal plants and the extra time it is taking for 
deliveries. You can add to that how little money it saves because the 
employees who are in one town, even though their job got moved 
somewhere else, still have to be retained in that town at some job. It 
does not amount to much in the way of savings, but it really hurts in 
the way of efficiency, delivery, and trust in the post office.
  So I think we will all be behind you on that one again. I hope that 
by the time we get to that, it will be a voice vote again.


                           Motion to Instruct

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending 
motion and call up Senator Burr's motion, which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the motion.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Enzi], for Mr. Burr,  moves 
     that the managers on the part of the Senate at the 
     conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on 
     the House amendment to the resolution S. Con. Res. 11 be 
     instructed to insist that the final conference report 
     include a provision relating to addressing student loan 
     debt, which may include reducing overlapping student loan 
     repayment programs and creating a simplified income-driven 
     student loan repayment option, as included in section 358 
     of S. Con. Res. 11, as agreed to by the Senate.

  Mr. ENZI. I would mention that this is a side-by-side to Senator 
Warren's amendment. I am hoping that at the time we vote, we can do 1 
minute on each side so they have a chance for their explanation.
  I now yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                       Trade Promotion Authority

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the need for the 
Senate to pass trade promotion authority legislation. It is no secret 
that trade matters in the ability of the United States and our 
businesses here to sell goods to foreign markets and to buy what we 
need from abroad to keep our businesses humming along right here at 
home and to keep Americans employed. This is paramount to our Nation's 
prosperity. You do not need to be an economist to see it. Anyone who 
owns an iPhone, drives a foreign car, or shops at Costco--everyone 
understands even in a small way that trade is beneficial to American 
companies and to customers alike. Likewise, American farmers and 
manufacturers and service providers want and need to sell their corn, 
cotton, beef, tractors, furniture, airplanes, their businesses and 
financial services to customers around the world who want and need 
them. Sadly, not all countries see it that way, and they throw up 
barriers to American goods and services. They do not want them entering 
their countries. That is why passing trade promotion authority is so 
important.
  Increasing free trade levels the playing field for U.S. companies. It 
increases competition. It increases access to foreign markets.
  According to the Office of U.S. Trade Representative, the United 
States is the world's largest economy, the largest importer, and the 
largest exporter of goods and services. In 2014, figures from the 
International Trade Administration show that the United States exported 
a record $2.35 trillion in goods and services.
  For those of us who represent border States, this issue hits close to 
home. In recent years, Mexico has been America's third largest trading 
partner and our second largest export market. According to the Arizona-
Mexico Commission, Arizona ports of entry are gateways to $41.6 billion 
in U.S.-Mexican trade annually, of which nearly $16 billion is 
attributed to Arizona's own trade with Mexico.
  Simply put, without trade promotion authority, the United States 
would be forced to stand on the sidelines as other countries move 
forward with their own trade agreements. Without renewing fast-track 
authority, there is little chance of a successful resolution of the 
ongoing negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP. This 
agreement will allow American companies to do business more freely with 
some of the world's fastest growing economies.

[[Page S2204]]

  As the Washington Post editorial put it this week, ``To this boon to 
the U.S. and world economies, add the fact that TPP would ensure that 
the Pacific Rim plays by U.S.-style rules and regulations rather than 
China's neo-mercantilist rules, and you have a compelling case for 
swift approval.'' I agree. But unless we pass trade promotion authority 
legislation, it will be difficult for the United States to become part 
of this vital partnership.
  I am proud to continue to voice my support for free trade. I look 
forward to the Senate giving trade promotion authority careful 
consideration in the coming weeks.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Motion to Instruct

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
motion be set aside so that I may call up my motion, which is at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski]  moves that the 
     managers on the part of the Senate at the conference on 
     the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House 
     amendment to the resolution S. Con. Res. 11 be instructed 
     to insist that the final conference report include a 
     provision relating to amending the Equal Pay Act of 1963 
     to allow for punitive damages, limit the any factor 
     ``other than sex'' exception, and prohibit retaliation 
     against employees who share salary information, as 
     included in amendment 362 to S. Con. Res. 11 (as not 
     agreed to by the Senate).

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to offer a motion to instruct the 
conferees based on a bill that I have offered for the last three 
Congresses; that is, the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  What does the Paycheck Fairness Act do? It finishes the job that we 
started with Lilly Ledbetter. It would, in fact, instruct the conferees 
to make three reforms:
  No. 1, to advance the cause of making sure that women get equal pay 
for equal work. It would stop retaliation for sharing pay information. 
Often workers are harassed and humiliated just for asking about 
coworkers' salaries.
  No. 2, it would stop employers from using any reason to pay women 
less: Oh, the guys do harder jobs. Women aren't breadwinners. OK, it is 
time for equal pay for equal work.
  It would also allow for punitive damages for women who are being 
discriminated against when the only deterrent against pay 
discrimination is the threat of paying women backpay. Discrimination 
can be factored into the cost of doing business.
  Yesterday was Equal Pay Day, something we, unfortunately, commemorate 
each year. It symbolizes that it takes 104 days longer in a year for a 
woman to earn what a man earned the previous year.
  What does that mean? It means that for what a man earns in 365 days, 
it takes a woman 469 days to earn the same amount of money--104 days 
more.
  We don't commemorate this day with joy but with a call to action. We 
need to make a change in the Federal lawbooks to finally get equal pay 
in the Federal checkbooks.
  Now, we want this in the budget act because we know this will be an 
important way of dealing with a variety of issues. We worked on this 
legislation for a number of years and, quite frankly, we are 
frustrated. We are frustrated that time and again we are trying to 
advance this cause.
  It started over 50 years ago. In 1963, Lyndon Johnson, moving on the 
civil rights legislation, thought that equal pay for women would be an 
easy thing to pass. At that time, only 11 percent of mothers were in 
the workforce. Now, there are over 70 percent of mothers in the 
workforce.
  At that time, women were, again, paid 59 cents for every $1 a man 
earned. Well, we passed the Civil Rights Act. Now, 50 years later, we 
are up to 78 cents for every $1 a man earns. So it has taken us 50 
years to advance 20 cents.
  Well, that just doesn't work. The women in America feel sidelined, 
redlined, and pink-slipped for the way they are discriminated against, 
and then they face the harassment and intimidation when they simply ask 
questions to get the pay they deserve.
  What we now know, again, is that the facts speak for themselves. 
Women earn 78 cents for every $1 a man makes. For women close to the 
retirement age, the wage gap increases to almost $14,000 a year. By the 
time she retires, the average woman has lost almost $400,000 in a 
lifetime of wages.
  The impact is you get less in Social Security benefits, you have less 
in savings, and you face the grim possibility of poverty. What we also 
know is that this has a tremendous impact in terms of single mothers.
  Over the weekend, there was a terrific article in the Washington Post 
saying if you wanted to eliminate poverty among children, you could 
take a major step in doing so if you closed the pay parity gap. In 
effect, by paying single women and single mothers equal pay for equal 
work, you could reduce the poverty rate among children by over 20 
percent.
  What a startling fact. Well, the fact is that we have been fighting 
for this for a long time.
  I urge the adoption of this amendment. I think it makes important 
fiscal policy, and it is important for the family's checkbook and for 
our checkbook.
  I wish to close with these remarks. I think it was the day before, in 
the New York Times. They were talking about how we are essentially 
subsidizing those people who are paid the minimum wage.
  Now, my background is that I was a social worker. The Presiding 
Officer is familiar with that. But when you look at the four major 
components of government subsidies to the poor--Medicaid, TANF, the 
child care development subsidy, and there is one other thing that I 
just don't recall at this minute--for actually people who are working--
oh, food stamps. Working every single day, they are eligible for 
government subsidies because they are not paid enough for what they do.
  What we often find is that not only is the minimum wage a terrible 
place to begin, but as you move up the work ladder, often women are in 
jobs where they are paid less than the men who work beside them. As a 
result--and it often is the case--we end, then, by dealing with that by 
our paying for it in Medicaid, in food stamps, and earned income tax 
credit.
  Now, I support those programs. I think when people are poor they need 
our help, but our goal is to make sure that if you were poor and you 
want to have a way to get ahead, we should help you.
  If you want to be middle class, we should help you get there. One of 
the ways to do that is to make sure we pay equal pay for equal work.
  I hope that my amendment is adopted. I could debate this in more 
ways, but year after year we come to the floor and we show the 
disparity between what women make from men for the same job.
  This isn't just a woman's issue. Many men here support this. I can 
tell you who supports it: fathers. Fathers, fathers, fathers. Why do 
they support it? They work hard to make sure that in many instances 
their daughters get a break, try to get an education, try to get ahead 
only to find that although they shouldered the same responsibilities 
for car payments, paying off student loans, and all of that, they, in 
fact, are not paid equal pay for equal work. We can change that by 
voting for the Mikulski amendment in this budget bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BENNET. 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. BENNET. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Motion to Instruct

  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
motion be set aside so that I may call up my motion.

[[Page S2205]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, the clerk will report the motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Bennet]  moves that the 
     managers on the part of the Senate at the conference on 
     the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House 
     amendment to the resolution S. Con. Res. 11 be 
     instructed--
       (1) to insist that the final conference report include 
     provisions in the concurrent resolution as agreed to by the 
     Senate for the establishment of deficit-neutral reserve funds 
     relating to--
       (A) responding to the causes and impacts of climate change, 
     including the economic and national security threats posed by 
     human-induced climate change; and
       (B) Department of Defense initiatives to bolster resilience 
     of mission critical department infrastructure to impacts from 
     climate change; and
       (2) to recede from the position of the Senate regarding 
     provisions in the concurrent resolution as agreed to by the 
     Senate for the establishment of deficit-neutral reserve funds 
     that undermine the response to climate change, including 
     prohibitions on the regulation by the Environmental 
     Protection Agency of greenhouse gas emissions.

  Mr. BENNET. 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. 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.


                           Motion to Instruct

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I send to the desk a motion to instruct 
conferees. I am offering this motion on behalf of Senator Murray.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
pending motion?
  Without objection, the clerk will report the motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], for Mrs. 
     Murray, moves that the managers on the part of the Senate 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the House amendment to the resolution S. Con. 
     Res. 11 be instructed to insist that the final conference 
     report include the deficit-neutral reserve fund for 
     legislation to allow Americans to earn paid sick time in 
     the concurrent resolution as agreed to by the Senate.

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this is a motion to instruct budget 
conferees to keep in the bill the Senate-passed deficit-neutral reserve 
fund for legislation to allow Americans to earn paid sick time. This 
was an amendment which passed during a vote-arama of the Senate by a 
vote of 61 to 39. So it passed with pretty strong bipartisan support, 
and I would hope we could pass this language again.
  The truth is, at a time when millions of Americans are working longer 
hours for lower wages, when our middle class continues to decline, we 
also have another serious problem in that only 53 percent of workers 
report having paid sick leave. Well, you know, people get sick. That is 
a fact of life, and it is unfortunate that only 53 percent of workers 
report having paid sick leave. This means people are going to work when 
they are not well. I don't know about you, but I am not enthused about 
walking into a restaurant where someone who may have the flu or have 
some other problem is serving food or preparing food. I don't think 
that is terribly healthy for this country, not to mention that when 
there are so many contagious illnesses out there, I don't know that we 
want to have people who are ill and contagious going to work.
  So this is a very simple motion and basically reiterates what we had 
in the first discussion. Again, it won by 61 to 39.
  All over this country, States and cities are in the process of 
enacting paid sick leave legislation, and they are seeing economic 
benefits from that. They have seen mothers more likely to return to 
work and higher employment in the leisure, hospitality, education, and 
health sectors.
  So, again, this is the same language Senator Murray offered. I 
strongly support this motion, and I hope my colleagues will vote for 
it.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. 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.


                           Motion to Instruct

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I send to the desk a motion to instruct 
conferees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report the 
motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], for Mrs. 
     Murray, moves that the managers on the part of the Senate 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the House amendment to the resolution S. Con. 
     Res. 11 be instructed to insist that the final conference 
     report include a provision to build on the Bipartisan 
     Budget Act of 2013 and provide sequester relief in 2016 
     and 2017 by closing tax loopholes.

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this motion is being offered on behalf of 
Senator Murray, and it would instruct budget conferees to build on the 
Bipartisan Budget Act and provide sequester relief in 2016 and 2017 by 
closing tax loopholes.
  As the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, I rise today to 
offer a motion to instruct conferees, on behalf of Senator Murray, to 
S. Con. Res. 11, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 
year 2016, to provide 2 years of sequester relief by closing tax 
loopholes. This is a concept, an idea I very strongly support. Many 
Members on both sides of the aisle are concerned that Congress will not 
be able to pass and enact appropriations bills at the sequester levels. 
The President's fiscal year 2016 budget provides sequester relief. 
Moreover, the President has indicated he will veto legislation that 
does not lift the sequester caps.
  Discretionary spending has already been cut by $1.6 trillion, and 
nondefense discretionary spending is currently on track to be the 
lowest in 50 years. Nondefense discretionary spending is on track to be 
the lowest in 50 years.
  Instead of continuing to cut nondefense discretionary spending, we 
need to increase funding for programs, such as education and 
infrastructure, that reduce income inequality and that create the 
millions of jobs we so desperately need. We can fund these investments 
by looking at wasteful spending in the Tax Code that has allowed major 
corporations to pay very little, if anything, in Federal income taxes.
  Each and every year, we are losing well over $100 billion in revenue 
because large, profitable corporations and some of the wealthiest 
Americans in this country are stashing their profits in the Cayman 
Islands, Bermuda, and other offshore tax havens.
  Further, the GAO has reported that the effective tax rate of large, 
profitable corporations is just 12.6 percent--much lower than the 35-
percent statutory rate because of these tax loopholes. That is much 
lower than what millions of middle-class workers pay to the IRS because 
of the loopholes written into the Tax Code by corporate lobbyists.
  In 1952, 32 percent of all of the revenue generated in this country 
came from large corporations. Today, that figure is down to just 11 
percent. Right now, there are so many loopholes in our Tax Code that it 
ends up that many large corporations making billions of dollars in 
profit pay nothing--zero--in corporate taxes to the Federal Government.
  As a few examples, General Electric made over $5.8 billion in profits 
in the United States last year but paid just nine-tenths of 1 percent 
of that amount in Federal income taxes. Time Warner made $4.3 billion 
in profits and paid nothing in Federal income taxes; in fact, it got a 
rebate of $26 million. Xerox made $628 million in profits in 2014 and 
paid nothing in Federal income taxes; in fact, it received a tax rebate 
of $16 million.
  I strongly support this motion which has been introduced by Senator 
Murray to provide sequester relief, particularly for nondefense 
discretionary programs, and I would hope very much that this motion to 
instruct will receive wide bipartisan support.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S2206]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Motion to Instruct

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
motion be set aside so that I may call up my motion, which is at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Ms. Stabenow] moves that the 
     managers on the part of the Senate at the conference on 
     the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House 
     amendment to the resolution S. Con. Res. 11 be instructed 
     to insist that the final conference report not include the 
     Medicare cuts in the concurrent resolution as agreed to by 
     the Senate, which would substantially increase out-of-
     pocket healthcare expenses for senior citizens, and not 
     include the Medicare cuts in the concurrent resolution as 
     agreed to by the House of Representatives, which would end 
     Medicare as it currently exists by turning it into a 
     voucher-based premium support system and eliminate the 
     guaranteed healthcare benefits earned by the people of the 
     United States.

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, my motion would instruct conferees to 
remove from the budget resolution any Medicare cuts that would increase 
out-of-pocket costs for senior citizens, eliminate guaranteed benefits, 
or make structural changes to Medicare by turning it into a voucher-
based premium support system.
  It is incredibly important that something as important as health care 
for senior citizens and those with disabilities be protected and 
honored. People are paying into this system. They have paid into this 
system their whole lives. They have the confidence of knowing that 
health care is available to them, those now on Medicare, and we need to 
make sure we are strengthening this health care system, not 
fundamentally changing it from a guaranteed system to some kind of a 
voucher system or making other kinds of changes that will cost people 
more money.
  When we began this process, my hope was that we could have a spending 
plan that really would address the middle class and a budget resolution 
that would make it very clear that this is about giving every American 
a fair shot--a fair shot to stay in the middle class or to work hard 
and get into the middle class--that this is really about strengthening 
our country. We don't have an economy without a middle class. It is not 
the other way around. We don't have an economy without a middle class. 
That is the economic engine.
  I was hoping for a budget that would reflect one of our core 
beliefs--that if you work hard in America, you are going to have a fair 
shot to be able to get ahead. But that is not what this budget is 
about. Unfortunately, this budget does not do that. Instead, 
Republicans have written a budget that continues to rig the system for 
the wealthy and the well-connected rather than creating opportunity for 
everybody to make it.
  That is really the fundamental fight we have had through this whole 
budget process. How do we grow the economy? Is it the top down? Do we 
give to those one more time at the very top and hope that it trickles 
down and that somehow people who are working hard every day will 
actually feel it and have money in their pockets, or do we focus on the 
middle? Do we focus on those working hard to get into the middle class 
and create an opportunity to grow from the bottom up, which is the way 
we know the economies grow?
  So I am deeply concerned about the cuts to Medicare in this budget. I 
am also deeply concerned about the other cuts to health care in this 
budget. We all wish we could control whether we get sick or whether our 
children get sick or whether moms and dads get sick, but the reality is 
that health care is an issue for all of us. It is not a frill; it is a 
necessity. Medicare has addressed that for seniors and people with 
disabilities in a way that gives them peace of mind and confidence in a 
quality medical system.
  We just addressed through a bill last night the whole question of 
making sure that doctors are paid and that they are available to people 
who are on Medicare. We have another part of the health care system 
called Medicaid, which is a lifeline to so many Americans who continue 
to feel the effects of the great recession and are struggling for basic 
health care needs. In fact, 80 percent of the Medicaid Program 
spending--80 percent of the dollars--goes to seniors in nursing homes 
and in some way impacts all of us--friends, neighbors, relatives.
  So we are looking at a budget on the Medicaid front--when we combine 
it all, eliminating the Medicaid expansion and having the other cuts in 
the budget--of a $1.2 trillion cut in the Senate budget. The Senate 
Republican budget cuts Medicaid health care--80 percent of which goes 
to seniors in nursing homes--by $1.2 trillion. It is even worse in the 
House. I worry when we are now looking at going to conference with the 
House of Representatives, where their combined cut was $1.7 trillion to 
Medicaid, of which most of the money goes to low-income seniors in 
nursing homes. They would then also turn it into a block grant and cut 
it on top of that, and we don't even know if it would get spent on 
health care.

  Unfortunately, this budget, while not really balancing, is attempting 
to be balanced on the backs of the most vulnerable Americans in our 
country, and our seniors are taking a huge hit in this budget. The 
House cuts all together $316 billion and moves away from the guaranteed 
benefit to something that has been called vouchers or premium support 
or other structures that don't look like Medicare.
  In the Senate, all together now, when you add it up and the effects 
of what was done last night, we are looking at a cut of $566 billion.
  My amendment would stop that $566 billion cut in Medicare or at least 
it would instruct--I should clarify that. I wish it would just 
automatically stop it, but it would instruct the final conference 
committee to not move forward on that $566 billion in Medicare cuts. We 
are talking about Americans who have worked hard all their lives, and 
they have earned that health care benefit.
  Let me also say that when we think about a budget that would reflect 
opportunity for everyone to get ahead or one that keeps a system rigged 
against the average American, we saw vote after vote where, 
unfortunately, colleagues on the other side of the aisle let 
opportunities slip away to provide real equal pay for women, equal pay 
for equal work. Yesterday was the day in which women finally made as 
much money in 2014 as a man made in 2014. It took the majority of women 
in this country until yesterday to make the same amount of money. We 
have an opportunity to fix that. The Republican colleagues said no. We 
had an opportunity to invest in rebuilding America--roads, bridges, 
water, sewer systems, crumbling infrastructure. Our distinguished 
ranking member is a champion on the issue of infrastructure. We had an 
opportunity to create millions of jobs and Republican colleagues said 
no. We had an opportunity to invest in education but instead we saw--
and we see--a bill that takes away funding for Pell grants that doesn't 
help millions of Americans who are struggling to pay back college 
loans.
  I just left a group of high school students from Brighton, MI, and 
the question I received was, What are you doing about the cost of 
college--and I am worried about the cost of college. I want to do the 
right thing. I want to go to school. They want to do what we are all 
asking them to do to get skills so they can compete in a global 
economy, be responsible adults.
  Too many will come out of that college experience with more than 
enough debt to buy a big house, and then they will not be able to buy 
the house as they dig themselves out of debt.
  We all know that in this bill, the Republican budget, both in the 
House and Senate, repeals the Affordable Care Act--between 16 million 
American people, health care gone, on top of all of the cuts to 
Medicare for senior citizens, senior citizens in nursing homes under 
Medicaid.
  When we had an opportunity to close tax loopholes, I offered again my 
Bring Jobs Home Act to say a company

[[Page S2207]]

should not be able to move on paper out of this country and avoid 
paying their fair share to contribute to the services of America. They 
still breathe the air. They still drink the water. They still drive on 
the roads. They still get the educated workforce. But they move on 
paper, and now they are not a part of those contributing to America. I 
don't think that is very patriotic, frankly. We had a chance to close 
that and instead support the middle class, people working hard, 
increase their earned-income tax credit, and Republican colleagues said 
no.
  So, unfortunately, we have in front of us a budget that says no to 
opportunity to the majority of Americans and yes to continued policies 
that, frankly, have not worked because they are focused on the 
privileged few.
  If I might take just 1 more minute, I want to put my hat on as 
ranking member, former chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, and 
say also that as a Member of the Budget Committee and the Agriculture 
Committee, I strongly urge the leadership in the Senate not to accept 
the reconciliation instruction related to agriculture and to, 
therefore, open the farm bill, all of the phases of the farm bill that 
we worked so hard to get passed in a bipartisan basis.
  I commend the chairman for not including that reconciliation 
instruction in the Senate. I very much appreciate that, but the House 
does. We have Members on both sides of the aisle deeply concerned about 
reopening what is economic certainty. We have a lot of places that 
there is not certainty. But in rural America at least we have 5 years 
of economic certainty through the farm bill, and we have nearly 400 
agricultural organizations led by the American Farm Bureau, food 
groups, conservation groups, nutrition groups that have asked us not to 
open the farm bill again in this process. I am very hopeful the 
Senate's position on that will be the position that is maintained.
  I offer an amendment that we will be voting on Medicare. I think it 
will be wonderful if we came together and said no to the cuts in 
Medicare and that we would show that we understand what is at stake for 
that program. Also, I hope we will very clearly indicate that we want 
to stand with rural America and our farmers and make sure they do not 
have to worry about opening the policies of the farm bill until the 5 
years on the farm bill has been completed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. I yield such time as the Senator from Nebraska needs to 
offer two motions. Those will be the last two offered, after which I 
think both sides are prepared to yield back their time and begin voting 
on the 13 different votes which we will be asking consent on when she 
finishes her speech.
  I yield time to the Senator from Nebraska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.


                           Motion to Instruct

  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending motion and call up my motion, which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Which motion does the Senator wish to call up first?
  Mrs. FISCHER. Equal pay.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mrs. Fischer] moves that the 
     managers on the part of the Senate at the conference on the 
     disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House amendment to 
     the resolution S. Con. Res. 11 be instructed to insist that 
     the final conference report include a provision relating to 
     promoting equal pay, which may include preventing 
     discrimination on the basis of sex and preventing retaliation 
     against employees for seeking or discussing wage information, 
     as included in section 356 of S. Con. Res. 11, as agreed to 
     by the Senate.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.


                           Motion to Instruct

  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending motion and call up my motion, which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mrs. Fischer] moves that the 
     managers on the part of the Senate at the conference on the 
     disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House amendment to 
     the resolution S. Con. Res. 11 be instructed to insist that 
     the final conference report include a provision relating to a 
     deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to tax credits for 
     employers providing paid family and medical leave.

  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. 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 all time be 
yielded back except for 5 minutes equally divided between the managers 
and that the Senate vote on the pending motions to instruct in the 
order listed, with 2 minutes equally divided in the usual form between 
each vote, and that all votes after the first in the series be limited 
to 10 minutes: No. 1 would be Brown on Wall Street banks; No. 2 would 
be Sanders, postal plant closures; No. 3 would be Burr, student loans; 
No. 4 would be Warren, student loans; No. 5 would be Sanders, Social 
Security; No. 6 would be Schatz, same-sex marriage benefits; No. 7 
would be Bennet, climate change; No. 8 would be Fischer, side-by-side 
to Mikulski; No. 9, Mikulski, equal pay for equal work; No. 10, 
Fischer, side-by-side to Murray; No. 11, Murray, paid sick leave; No. 
12, Murray, eliminate sequestration; and No. 13, Stabenow, Medicare 
cuts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as I have indicated on many occasions, I 
think this Republican budget is, frankly, a disaster. It causes severe 
harm for some of the most vulnerable people in this country. It throws 
27 million people off of health insurance. It forces elderly people to 
pay more for prescription drugs. It cuts $90 billion in mandatory Pell 
grants at a time when young people are struggling to be able to afford 
to go to college. Pell grants are one of the significant ways that they 
are able to go to college; $90 billion is cut. It cuts Head Start 
significantly, such that 110,000 fewer young children will be able to 
enroll in Head Start. It cuts title I education program money directed 
to schools with low-income kids, the schools who need help the most.
  At a time when so many of our families are struggling to put food on 
the table, this budget cuts nutrition programs, including the WIC 
Program, by $10 billion. That is the nutrition program that goes to 
pregnant women, mothers, and infants. It makes other massive cuts in 
nutrition. It makes cuts in affordable housing. It makes cuts in job 
training.

  Now, in the midst of all of this, what it does also, unbelievably, 
while wreaking havoc on the lives of millions of working families, it 
decides that we can afford to give huge tax breaks to the very, very, 
very wealthiest--the top two-tenths of 1 percent--by abolishing the 
estate tax which would provide $263 billion in tax breaks for the 
wealthiest two-tenths of 1 percent of the American people. But then, 
after giving huge tax breaks to the very, very, very rich, what it does 
is raise taxes for low-income and working-class families by increasing 
taxes by $900 apiece for more than 13 million families by allowing the 
expansion of the earned-income tax credit and the child tax credit to 
expire.
  So massive cuts in health care, education, and nutrition for working 
families; huge tax breaks----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for one more 
minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANDERS. As I was saying, huge tax breaks for millionaires and 
billionaires and then increased taxes for low-income and working 
people. This is moving the country in exactly the wrong direction.
  Today, our side of the aisle brought forth 10 separate motions to 
instruct, which, if passed, would make this budget a much better 
document, and I hope very much that both sides of the aisle will 
support these motions.

[[Page S2208]]

  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member for his 
cooperation to date and look forward to working with him on the 
conference committee, along with the Members of the House, both the 
Republicans and the Democrats. The purpose of that is to make this is a 
better budget bill.
  I will reiterate that I had about 4 weeks to put it together and 4 
months to get it done. We have not done one in 8 years, so it was quite 
a challenge. We are getting closer now, and today we will have an 
opportunity to voice some concerns. I am glad we are at this point. I 
look forward to working with the conferees.
  I yield back any time.


                        Brown Motion to Instruct

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior 
to a vote in relation to the motion offered by the Senator from Ohio 
related to Wall Street banks.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this motion is being offered by Senator 
Brown of Ohio. Our big banks are too big. The largest banks are now 38 
percent larger than they were before the crisis. In terms of 
outstanding loans, one out of seven Americans is being pursued by a 
debt collector. U.S. banks are so big that the six largest financial 
institutions in this country today have assets of roughly $9.8 
trillion, which is equivalent to 60 percent of the Nation's GDP.
  Being big and powerful is good for the banks and bad for this 
country. For example, Bloomberg says the too-big-to-fail subsidy is 
massive. By being big, they get huge subsidies. It amounts to $83 
billion a year, and that is why I support this provision to stop too 
big to fail.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, this bill is cosponsored by Senator Vitter 
from our side. If a big bank fails under the Senator's reform, there is 
nothing that protects the taxpayers from having to save the bank. In 
other words, this approach does not do what many experts believe is 
needed, which is to expand the bankruptcy laws to permit an orderly 
disposition to failed banks without taxpayer bailouts.
  I will note that the specific policies listed are all authorities 
that exist today in various financial regulatory agencies, and I 
believe all Senators support the goal of eliminating the risk of 
taxpayer bailouts.
  Having said that, I ask that all the Republicans support this motion 
and offer to take it on a voice vote.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. 
Vitter).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 86, nays 11, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 146 Leg.]

                                YEAS--86

     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     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
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--11

     Alexander
     Burr
     Coats
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Flake
     Hatch
     Risch
     Sasse
     Tillis
     Toomey

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Cruz
     Reid
     Vitter
  The motion was agreed to.


                       Sanders Motion to Instruct

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided prior to a vote in relation to the motion to instruct offered 
by the Senator from Vermont relative to postal plant closures.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, in the State of Vermont and I expect all 
over this country, especially in rural areas, what we have seen is a 
significant slowdown in mail delivery by the U.S. Postal Service. What 
this provision is about is the establishment of a deficit-neutral 
reserve fund which establishes a moratorium to prevent the shutting 
down of up to 82 mail processing plants all across this country. It is 
asking that we reinstate overnight delivery standards, undo what the 
Postal Service has done, that we protect rural services, and that we 
allow the Postal Service to innovate and adapt to compete in a digital 
age.
  The basic financial problems of the Postal Service are that they have 
to pay $5.5 billion every year in retirement benefits. That program 
already has $50 billion in its account. Do away with that, and the 
Postal Service will make a modest profit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, there is a huge concern, particularly in 
rural America, about the closing down of the processing centers in 
States. Our State no longer has a processing center. It takes at least 
an extra day to get the mail.
  So I would urge my colleagues to accept this motion, and I would ask 
if the sponsor would take it by voice vote.
  Mr. SANDERS. I have to call for a rollcall vote on this one.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  Mr. SANDERS. 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.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. 
Vitter).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) 
and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 85, nays 11, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 147 Leg.]

                                YEAS--85

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

                                NAYS--11

     Cassidy
     Coats
     Corker
     Flake
     Kirk
     Lee
     Paul
     Perdue
     Rubio
     Tillis
     Toomey

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Boxer
     Cruz
     Reid
     Vitter
  The motion was agreed to.


                        Burr Motion to Instruct

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided prior to a vote in relation to the

[[Page S2209]]

motion to instruct by the Senator from North Carolina relative to 
student loans.
  The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise to offer a motion to instruct 
conferees that would insist that the final conference report on the 
budget include a provision to address student loans. This very simple 
motion to instruct tracks the amendment introduced by me and Senators 
King, Warner, and Alexander that was included in the budget resolution 
by a voice vote.
  The Senate has already demonstrated its support by unanimously 
passing this under a voice vote.
  I yield to my cosponsor, Senator King.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. KING. Mr. President, I rise to support this amendment. This 
simply simplifies the repayment options for students under the present 
student loan program, which is, frankly, very confusing--up to nine 
different programs with confusing names and confusing terms. This boils 
it down to two simple ones: a fixed repayment schedule or a variable 
schedule based upon income. I should mention that I see this as an 
important stand-alone provision.
  I am also going to support Senator Warren's amendment on refinancing 
student loans.
  I believe this is an important amendment. I urge my colleagues to 
vote yes.
  Mr. BURR. 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 yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back all 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, all time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. 
Vitter).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 148 Leg.]

                                YEAS--97

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Boxer
     Cruz
     Vitter
  The motion was agreed to.


                       Warren Motion to Instruct

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior 
to a vote in relation to the motion offered by the Senator from 
Massachusetts relative to student loans.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I support simplifying student loans--the 
motion that just passed 97 to 0--and I commend Senators King and Burr, 
but it is not enough. We need to cut the interest rate on student 
loans. The Federal Government should not be making a profit off the 
backs of our kids who are trying to get an education.
  This bill is paid for by asking millionaires and billionaires to pay 
taxes at the same rate as middle-class families.
  This is a bill which really puts it to the Senate. Are we here to 
work just for the millionaires and billionaires or are we here to work 
for young people who are trying to get an education? This Senate works 
all the time for billionaires. Today, I hope we can make it work for 
our students.
  I urge adoption of this motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against the 
Warren motion. What the Senator wants to do is to create yet another 
repayment program, which ultimately ends up costing students more than 
the income-based repayment. She puts hundreds of billions of private 
debt on the Federal books and pretends the cost is free. Rather than 
fixing the maze of repayment programs, she adds to it with a new 
program that is ultimately less generous than the existing program. 
Whereas the Federal Government income-based repayment program and other 
related loan repayment programs will cap payments as a percentage of an 
individual's income, Senator Warren's legislation would only lower the 
interest rate on those payments, potentially steering students into 
higher monthly payments than they face in those other programs. So I 
urge my colleagues to oppose the Warren motion.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  Ms. WARREN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. 
Vitter).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 149 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     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

                                NAYS--52

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Boxer
     Cruz
     Vitter
  The motion was rejected.


                       Sanders Motion to Instruct

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided prior to a vote in relation to the motion offered by the 
Senator from Vermont relative to Social Security.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, Social Security is arguably the most 
important Federal program we have. It is life and death to millions of 
senior citizens, people who have to figure out how they pay for food, 
how they heat their homes, how they pay for their medicine. Social 
Security is not going broke. It could pay out all benefits for the next 
18 years.
  What this provision does is make it clear that we go on record to not 
cut Social Security benefits, not raise the

[[Page S2210]]

retirement age, not privatize Social Security. Let's stand with the 
seniors of this country. Let us protect Social Security, not cut it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, under the budget rules we can't do anything 
to Social Security. So this doesn't provide permission or denial of 
anything that we can do at the present time. We cannot touch Social 
Security under the budget.
  So I ask for the Senator to take a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  Mr. SANDERS. 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.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. 
Vitter).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 84, nays 13, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 150 Leg.]

                                YEAS--84

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

                                NAYS--13

     Coats
     Cochran
     Flake
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Lee
     McConnell
     Perdue
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Boxer
     Cruz
     Vitter
  The motion was agreed to.


                       Schatz Motion to Instruct

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior 
to a vote in relation to the motion offered by the Senator from Hawaii 
relative to same-sex marriage benefits.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, on this motion, I think we are willing to 
yield back all time and accept it on a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, all time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The motion was agreed to.


                            Vote Explanation

  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I would like the Record to reflect that 
had the vote on the Schatz motion to instruct conferees been conducted 
by a rollcall vote, I would have voted nay.


                       Bennet Motion to Instruct

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided prior to a vote in relation to the motion offered by the 
Senator from Colorado relative to climate change.
  The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I rise to offer a very simple motion to 
instruct the budget conferees. It encourages the conferees to address 
the economic and national security threats posed by climate change. 
During our consideration of the budget, I offered an amendment that 
outlined these threats and highlighted the need to act. That amendment 
passed the Senate by a 53-to-47 vote. It was supported by both 
Republicans and Democrats. The same language should be included in the 
final budget conference.
  During the markup, the Budget Committee adopted a complementary 
amendment which discussed the importance of climate change initiatives 
in the Department of Defense. The language should be included in the 
final budget resolution.
  Let's make it clear that the Congress plans to respond to the serious 
economic and national security threats posed by climate change.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this motion to instruct.
  I yield the floor, and I ask for a voice vote.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, we are willing to accept it on a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the motion?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The motion was agreed to.


                       Fischer Motion to Instruct

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior 
to a vote in relation to the motion offered by the Senator from 
Nebraska relative to equal pay.
  The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, this motion takes an important step 
forward by providing necessary updates to current law regarding 
nonretaliation. The change was supported on a bipartisan during our 
recent budget debate.
  This motion reinforces current law by banning gender discrimination 
under both the Equal Pay Act and title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights 
Act. Contrary to the claims of some, both of these laws enable women to 
sue for discrimination.
  Furthermore, my motion contains language similar to President Obama's 
April 2014 Executive order stating that employees cannot be punished 
for exercising their First Amendment rights by speaking with employers 
or coworkers about their wages.
  I cannot support the motion of the Senator from Maryland. It removes 
merit pay, which I believe provides women with opportunities to advance 
in their careers, and merit pay recognizes a woman's hard work and her 
contributions. It also eliminates any liability cap under the motion of 
the Senator from Maryland, which I believe benefits only attorneys and 
not families. For the first time we are able to do this.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  All time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. 
Vitter).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 151 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

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

                                NAYS--40

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Boxer
     Cruz
     Vitter
  The motion was agreed to.

[[Page S2211]]

                      Mikulski Motion to Instruct

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided prior to a vote in relation to the motion offered by the 
Senator from Maryland related to equal pay.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I have an alternative and far more 
comprehensive approach than the Senator from Nebraska just offered. 
Although I respect her and her advocacy for women, the Mikulski 
amendment in the well would really finish the job we started with Lilly 
Ledbetter. Yes, it would deal with the issue of harassment on the job 
if one asks for information, which the Fischer amendment only dealt 
with. My amendment would go several steps further. No. 2, it would 
provide punitive damages for women who have been wrongly denied equal 
pay for several years. No. 3, it also eliminates the false reasons 
people give for not paying equal pay for equal work.
  The Mikulski amendment is more comprehensive, more robust, and will 
really finish the job and close the loopholes big corporations have had 
for years. So if my colleagues like the Fischer amendment, they will be 
crazy about the Mikulski amendment. Go all the way, not just part of 
the way.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does anyone wish to speak in opposition?
  Mr. ENZI. We yield back our time, and we will take a voice vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. 
Vitter).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 152 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

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

                                NAYS--53

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Boxer
     Cruz
     Vitter
  The motion was rejected.


                       Fischer Motion to Instruct

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided prior to a vote in relation to the motion offered by the 
Senator from Nebraska relative to paid sick leave.
  The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mrs. FISCHER. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Workplace flexibility is a necessity for our 21st-century families, 
and Senator King and I have come up with a proposal that I think really 
addresses this in a way that is voluntary and incentivizes businesses 
to truly help families, help those hourly workers meet the needs they 
are facing in this workplace environment and in their family 
environments.
  I yield the rest of my time to Senator King.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. KING. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment and in 
support of the United States finally joining the civilized nations of 
the world in providing for family leave for our citizens. I know this 
amendment doesn't go as far as some would like, but I believe it is 
very credible, enforceable legislation that can move forward and really 
change the lives of thousands and millions of people across this 
country.
  I commend the Senator from Nebraska for bringing this amendment 
forward, and I intend to support it and urge my colleagues to do 
likewise.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, if all time is yielded back, we would be 
willing to take a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, all time is yielded 
back.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The motion was agreed to.


                       Murray Motion to Instruct

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the 
motion offered by the Senator from Washington relative to paid sick 
leave.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Congress, we have to vote on an economy that works for all of our 
families, not just the wealthiest few. Today, 43 million Americans do 
not have access to paid sick days, and when they are sick, they have to 
choose between losing money out of their paycheck or toughing it out 
and showing up to work.
  I was delighted that during our budget debate, a bipartisan 
majority--61 Senators strong--agreed that Congress should allow workers 
to earn paid sick days. The amendment that just passed is voluntary. It 
would only benefit a select number of people who work for employers who 
already do the right thing.
  This amendment will make sure that we boost worker productivity and 
reduce turnover, which are benefits to both employers and employees. I 
urge my colleagues to vote for this in a strong vote.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield back our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, we would be willing to accept this on a 
voice vote, and we yield back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having been yielded back, the 
question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The motion was agreed to.


                       Murray Motion to Instruct

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the 
motion offered by the Senator from Washington relating to sequestration 
elimination.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, Democrats and Republicans agree that the 
automatic spending cuts across defense and nondefense investments are 
terrible policy and need to be fixed. The bipartisan Budget Act we 
passed last Congress did exactly that for the past 2 years and offered 
us a template for how we can tackle this challenge in a bipartisan way, 
once again.
  We do not need to rely on gimmicks in this budget or the hopes that 
we will somehow solve this later. We can fix this now in this 
conference. I urge my colleagues to support this vote instructing the 
conferees to roll back sequestration, allow the Appropriations 
Committee to do their work and not kick this can down the road for all 
of us to address later.
  I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, there is a difference between how it got 
voted through last year, which was actually an appropriation rather 
than a budget. This does raise taxes in order to overcome the 
sequestration. So I am urging a ``no'' vote. We have agreed to have a 
voice vote on this one.
  We yield back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having been yielded back, the 
question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The motion was rejected.


                      Stabenow Motion to Instruct

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2

[[Page S2212]]

minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the 
motion offered by the Senator from Michigan relating to Medicare cuts.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, my motion would instruct conferees to 
remove from the final budget resolution any Medicare cuts that would 
increase out-of-pocket costs for senior citizens, eliminating 
guaranteed benefits or making structural changes to Medicare by turning 
it into a voucher-based system or premium support system.
  I think one of our greatest concerns in this budget, among many, is 
the fact that when you add it all up, there are $566 billion in 
Medicare cuts in this Senate resolution. Shockingly, it is more than 
even the House cuts. I would urge that we stand with people who pay 
into a health care system that works. They have earned those benefits. 
They are counting on those benefits.
  Seniors and people with disabilities across the country need to know 
Medicare is an intact, guaranteed health care system for them.
  I urge support for my motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am going to urge my colleagues to reject 
this motion to instruct. I credit Senator Stabenow's instincts to 
approach the question of Medicare seriously. I am sure she knows we all 
take Medicare's future seriously. There are some problems with Medicare 
that need to be solved.
  The budget shows Medicare's rate of growth for an average annual rate 
of 6.4 to 5.5 percent over the next 10 years. Why does the budget 
resolution adopt these numbers? Because Republicans and the President 
agree we must 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 trust fund by at least 5 
years. According to the Medicare trustees themselves, the hospital 
insurance fund could be insolvent as early as 2021, just 6 years from 
now.
  Independent actuaries at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid report 
that over the next 75 years, the Federal Government has promised more 
than $35 trillion in Medicare benefits. So Republicans joined with the 
President in looking to extend the life of the hospital insurance trust 
fund and make the Medicare program sustainable.
  So I ask that you reject this motion to instruct.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, if I might take just 1 more moment, I do 
not think I used all my time.
  I just want to say for the record, the President of the United States 
is not supporting $566 billion in cuts to Medicare.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  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 legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. 
Vitter).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 153 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     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

                                NAYS--52

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Boxer
     Cruz
     Vitter
  The motion was rejected.
  The Presiding Officer appointed Mr. Enzi, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Sessions, 
Mr. Crapo, Mr. Graham, Mr. Portman, Mr. Toomey, Mr. Johnson, Ms. 
Ayotte, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Corker, Mr. Perdue, Mr. Sanders, Mrs. Murray, 
Mr. Wyden, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Warner, Mr. Merkley, Ms. 
Baldwin, Mr. Kaine, and Mr. King conferees on the part of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.

                          ____________________