[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4519-4607]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      CONCURRENT BUDGET RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2014

  Under the previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 
Con. Res. 8, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 8) setting forth the 
     congressional budget for the United States Government for 
     fiscal year 2014, revising the appropriate budgetary levels 
     for fiscal year 2013, and setting forth the appropriate 
     budgetary levels for fiscal years 2015 through 2023.

  Pending:

       Reid (for Mikulski) amendment No. 431, to establish a 
     deficit-neutral reserve fund to require equal pay policies 
     and practices.
       Reid (for Ayotte/Thune) amendment No. 158, to prohibit the 
     consideration of a budget resolution that includes revenue 
     increases while the civilian unemployment rate is above 5.5 
     percent, the administration's prediction for the unemployment 
     rate without the stimulus.
       Reid (for Cruz) amendment No. 202, to establish a deficit-
     neutral reserve fund to provide for the repeal of the Patient 
     Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and 
     Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 and to encourage 
     patient-centered reforms to improve health outcomes and 
     reduce health care costs, promoting economic growth.
       Reid (for Murray) amendment No. 439, to amend the deficit-
     neutral reserve fund for tax relief to provide tax relief for 
     low and middle-income families.
       Reid (for Crapo) amendment No. 222, to establish a deficit-
     neutral reserve fund to repeal the tax increases enacted 
     under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that 
     were imposed on low-and middle-income Americans.
       Reid (for Shaheen/Stabenow) amendment No. 438, to establish 
     a deficit-neutral reserve fund to protect women's access to 
     health care, including primary and preventative health care, 
     family planning and birth control, and employer-provided 
     contraceptive coverage, such as was provided under the 
     Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148).


                                Schedule

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, from now until 11 a.m., there will be 
conversation on the floor. At 11 a.m., we will have six rollcall votes. 
The first vote will be 15 minutes and after that the votes will be 10 
minutes each, as we said yesterday, and I enforced it. When the time is 
up, we are closing the vote. If the Republicans are not here, too bad; 
if the Democrats are not here, too bad. We are going to have a lot of 
votes today, so everyone should make sure they are here. Understand if 
you are not here in time, the clerk has been asked to turn the vote in.
  After we complete the six rollcall votes starting at 11 a.m., there 
will be 2 hours of debate remaining on the resolution. Therefore, 
unless something untoward happens, the vote-arama is expected to begin 
at 3 p.m. this afternoon. I hope everyone will understand we have had 
about 400 amendments that have been filed. We are not going to vote on 
400 amendments. The average is usually between 25 and 35 votes. So 
everyone should understand that is about where we should wind up.
  Everyone is going to be tired. The two managers have worked very hard 
on this for a long time, so be considerate of their time, their 
thoughts, and their efforts also.


                     Measure Placed on the Calendar

  Mr. President, S. 649 is at the desk and due for a second reading.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bill by 
title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 649) to ensure that all individuals who should 
     be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the 
     national instant criminal background check system and require 
     a background check for every firearm sale, and for other 
     purposes.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings with 
respect to the bill.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection having been heard, the 
measure will be placed on the calendar.

[[Page 4520]]




                       Reservation of Leader Time

  Under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved.
  Under the previous order, the time until 11 a.m. will be equally 
divided and controlled between the two managers or their designees.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I wish to thank Ranking Member Sessions 
once again for another good day of vigorous debate. There are clearly 
some differences between us in the Senate, but all our constituents 
benefit from having those views laid out and expressed clearly. I 
appreciate all he is doing to help us move along as well as have the 
good debate we are having.
  Yesterday, the Senate did vote to reject the idea that balancing the 
budget by an arbitrary date should come before middle-class families 
and broad-based economic growth. Last night, the Senate voted to 
continue down the path toward a truly balanced approach to tackling our 
economic and fiscal challenges. It is the kind of approach that cuts 
spending responsibly and calls on the wealthiest Americans and biggest 
corporations to pay their fair share.
  We voted on an approach that puts our economy first and foremost and 
makes sure we are protecting, not threatening, our fragile economic 
recovery. That is the kind of approach that is supported by the vast 
majority of the American people, and the Senate stood strongly behind 
that.
  The Senate strongly rejected the budget that passed the House of 
Representatives yesterday. Their budget would meet the goal by 
balancing the budget with an arbitrary date but would do it in a way 
that would be devastating for our families and the economy. It would 
dismantle Medicare and end up cutting taxes for the rich while raising 
them on the middle class; not only that, but it did rely on gimmicks 
and tricks to hit that arbitrary date. There is nothing balanced about 
that kind of approach. I am very glad every Member of the Senate had an 
opportunity to be clear about where we stand on that.
  The Senate also voted yesterday to specifically reject the idea that 
Medicare should be dismantled or voucherized. I am glad we had strong 
bipartisan support on that amendment. We also voted clearly for the 
idea that while both sides favor closing tax loopholes and ending 
wasteful deductions that favor the wealthiest Americans and biggest 
corporations, the Senate thinks some of that revenue should be used to 
tackle the deficit and invest in the middle class, not to be used to 
simply cut tax rates for the rich the way the House budget did.
  We have a few more hours of debate this morning between now and 11 
a.m., followed by some votes, and then we will close out the debate and 
move on to all the rest of the votes we will take before final passage 
late tonight or early tomorrow morning.
  As the majority leader said, we have hundreds of amendments. If we 
were to vote on all of them, we would be here every single hour voting 
between Monday and Tuesday. I think every Member knows that is probably 
not going to happen. I encourage every Member of the Senate to work 
with the manager on their side so we can get the amendments up sooner 
rather than later and vote on the ones each side wants us to.
  I urge all my colleagues to work with us and our staff to make sure 
we know where the priorities are, how to proceed, and we will work with 
everyone to combine similar amendments. Obviously, among those 400 
amendments, there are a number that are similar. We will clear as many 
noncontroversial amendments by voice vote as we can, and we will get 
through as many votes as possible in a fair and reasonable manner. We 
look forward to working with Senator Sessions to make sure we can do 
that.
  I encourage our colleagues--there is a bit more time for them to have 
their say before we vote. If anyone would like to have their say, make 
sure our staffs know before making any statements.
  With that, I yield to my colleague, Senator Sessions.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have enjoyed working with Senator 
Murray. She is a strong leader. She makes clear decisions and sticks by 
them and executes them. I respect that. She has stayed within the rules 
as the chair of the committee. We disagreed on a number of things. Our 
vision for the financial future of America is quite different.
  I understand how difficult it is to produce a budget. That is not an 
easy thing to accomplish. When there is a divergent caucus, it is 
particularly difficult.
  Politico said the budget was written by the left of the Democratic 
caucus to the left of President Obama. I think that is probably 
correct. It is a very big spending, big tax budget. It is the wrong 
thing for America. It is the wrong thing for economic stability. It is 
the wrong kind of plan if made into law to help us grow our economy, 
create jobs, create wealth, get people overtime and bonuses and pay 
raises, the kind of thing we have when the economy is growing.
  This budget is the wrong medicine. I have to say I strongly believe 
it takes us in the wrong direction. What does it do at the bottom? It 
raises taxes. It raises taxes, according to the chairman, by $1 
trillion--$985 billion. That is almost $1 trillion. We think it raises 
it $1.5 trillion. There is a reserve fund to make it easy to raise more 
taxes. I asked the chair to close that so it could not be used to raise 
taxes easily, but she declined, which continued to cause me to believe 
that is an additional part. Regardless, $1 trillion in new taxes is a 
huge tax increase.
  In January of this year, the President got a $600 billion tax 
increase on the rich. Plus there is $1 trillion in tax increase in the 
President's health care bill. So we are already at $1.6 trillion in new 
taxes, and there is a proposal in this budget for at least another $1 
trillion. That is not healthy for the economy.
  We all know when we extract more wealth out of the economy, it does 
have effects. One of them is it weakens the economy and strengthens the 
central government. The central government is not managing the people's 
money well. We have no interest, it appears from this budget, in 
listening to the American people and running their government better, 
leaner, more productive, get more bang for the buck. What do we do? We 
ask for more money. We haven't done anything wrong; send us more money.
  I have to urge my colleagues to honestly examine what the budget 
does. In addition to raising taxes, we would think that would help us. 
They say they have a balanced approach. We started counting how many 
times my Democratic colleagues used the word ``balance.'' I think it 
suggests a guilty conscience myself because the budget in no way comes 
close to balancing a budget. It doesn't pretend to. It explicitly 
rejects it. There is not an arbitrary date. There is not a date 
proposed to balance the budget. In fact, because it makes no changes in 
the drivers of our debt, the big entitlement programs, the big welfare 
programs, the interest on the debt, none of those are constrained by 
this budget. We know the next 10 years that are outside the budget 
window will be even worse. They will be on an unsustainable course, 
accelerating even off the course we are on today, which is 
unsustainable. So I am very disappointed.
  Everybody who has been involved or who has participated--whether it 
is the Gang of 6 or the committee of 12, as our chairman did, the super 
committee--knows that nearly 60 percent of the money the government is 
now spending, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on 
the debt, food stamps, those programs are out of control. They are 
entitlements, which means we set up legal standards that if those 
standards are met, anyone can walk into a government office and demand 
the money. They have to give it to them. If they don't, they can sue 
the government. I am 68 years old, I want my Social Security check. We 
can't say we don't have any money.
  So this is the kind of thing that needs to be fixed now. It needs to 
be

[[Page 4521]]

discussed now. Every expert who is an independent adviser to the 
government has said: You guys need to get together and fix this.
  So what the budget before us today says is, no, we are not going to 
fix any of that. We have no plans to construct any of that. And any of 
our Republican colleagues who suggest that these programs have to be 
changed, we say they don't like old people. We say they don't like poor 
people. We say they don't want people to have food.
  That is what we say--attack, attack, attack, when everybody knows 
change must occur. We know that. It is not in this budget--nothing in 
the budget. So they don't change the programs within the budget. I 
suggest that is not responsible. I suggest that is not a budget worthy 
of a party that says they want to lead America. The great Democratic 
Party is absolutely refusing to confront the great financial issues of 
our time. No, we won't talk about it, and if our Republican colleagues 
do, we are going to attack Paul Ryan because he has a creative, 
insightful way to preserve Medicare and make it more healthy in the 
future and put it on a sound path. We are going to say he is trying to 
destroy Medicare.
  Paul Ryan has a plan to save Medicare, bring it into the 21st 
century, and make things better. It ought to be discussed openly and 
fairly, not demonized. That is the level of debate we are in here.
  In private when we talk to our colleagues, they say: Yes, we need to 
make changes. We really do.
  Well, when? And when the paper is printed, when the budget is 
printed, it is not there. It is not there. So there is no reform of the 
fundamental drivers of our debt.
  We also know that last year we spent $750 billion on 83 government 
welfare programs, means-tested programs; that is, if a person's income 
is below a certain level, the government deems that person worthy of 
some subsidy of some kind. Many of these 83 programs are duplicative. 
There is not a coherent focus on them that endeavors to help the 
people, really, other than giving them money, giving them aid. There is 
not a sufficient focus in all of these programs in actually helping 
that struggling mother with children who is out of work, who lost her 
job, who can no longer get overtime or bonus pay, and young people who 
are struggling to get up on the ladder of work and prosperity. This is 
not helping them. And these programs are just temporary. We have 
billions going out for unemployment insurance, food stamps, temporary 
assistance to needy families, earned-income tax credit, all of these 
programs.
  It is time for us to begin a massive overhaul, review all of these 
programs, and several things can happen. One thing that can happen is 
we can make them better, and we can actually create programs that allow 
each person in their time of need to get temporary assistance, to be 
able to refocus their life, to move into the workforce, help them find 
the training they need to get into areas that need jobs right now, and 
help them move forward. But do my colleagues know what we have in our 
Senate and among a lot of the Members of the House? We have a goal to 
see how many more workers we can bring in without effectively helping 
American workers who are unemployed.
  We have an immigration policy that says we have jobs but we don't 
have enough workers. That is what the businesses are telling us. We 
don't have enough workers. They all ought to add--when they send us 
that message, they ought to say: And by the way, you need to give more 
welfare and more aid to people who don't have jobs. Now, what is the 
disconnect there?
  We need to be protecting American citizens who are here, out of work, 
and hurting today--minorities, Blacks and Whites and all colors and 
races that are hurting today with high unemployment, but we seem to be 
more focused on how we can ram through this Senate a bill that would 
legalize millions and create an even more robust guest worker program. 
There are not enough jobs now. Give me a break.
  So we are talking about $750 billion going out now for these 83 
programs, projected to go up 80 percent in the next decade--the total 
of those programs--go up 80 percent in the next decade. We have 
calculated those numbers, and if it went up 60 percent, it would save 
$1 trillion. I think we can make those programs more effective, more 
helpful, and organized in a way that really advances the needs of poor 
people and save $1 trillion. That ought to be our goal. We will let it 
grow as much as we have to allow it grow to take care of people in 
need. We are going to make sure people have their needs met in America 
who are struggling out there, but at the same time, it can be done 
better, and every American knows it. They will talk to us when we ask 
them about it. They are uneasy about the easy money and the feeling 
that this system isn't working when it comes to government assistance, 
and I think they are right. I would ask my colleagues if they think 
they are right. I really think so. So what does that mean? That means 
we should be having hearings and doing work to fix it, which we are not 
doing.
  The challenge of our time is the unsustainable debt course this 
country is on. The challenge of our time is for us to demonstrate that 
we made the changes necessary to place this economy on a sound footing.
  I believe the great minds of our time are not as smart as they think 
they are. In 2001 Chairman Greenspan of the Fed came before the Budget 
Committee and talked about what we were going to do when the entire 
debt of the United States was paid down, and he worried we wouldn't 
know what to do with the money. Of course, we were in a recession 
within a few months, and now we see demographically that we are on an 
unsustainable debt course. The new Fed Chairman, Mr. Bernanke, as the 
Wall Street Journal documented, at the time was promoting Mr. Greenspan 
to spend more money and keep losing money before the housing crisis--
just exactly the wrong advice. He didn't see it coming. So we are not 
so smart around here.
  I am worried about the future. What do I think responsible government 
policymakers should do? They should provide a good, solid framework for 
the vibrant, free market economy in this country to flourish. We can't 
be the kind of off and on again faucet for money and taxes and spending 
and not spending and bouncing around here trying to pass laws every few 
months to meet what is perceived as the financial goal of somebody on 
Wall Street at that moment. We are not able to do that.
  What we should do is lay out a strong, clear policy, adhere to it, 
and let the businesspeople risk their money with some ability to 
ascertain what those risks are, not expecting the government to come in 
and alter the situation and the rules of the game a few months down the 
road. That is what we should do--create a sound framework. We are not 
doing that. I am concerned about it.
  Finally, this budget increases spending. It increases spending very 
dramatically at a time when we don't need to be increasing spending at 
this rate. We are increasing spending above the rate we are currently 
set to operate by--the Budget Control Act line-- which allows for 
increasing spending every year. But this budget spends more than that, 
and it raises $1 trillion in taxes, at least, and it expends all of 
those new taxes, eats that up with new spending. If it called for us to 
stay on the current baseline of spending, growth that is going up, and 
we raised $1 trillion in taxes, we would have $1 trillion in reduced 
deficit over the next 10 years. But it spends more money, and it eats 
up the new taxes with new spending. It really does.
  This is a failed plan that has been produced by the majority party in 
the Senate. When people heard this--this is what is being said to the 
American people, and we all know it: The Democratic leadership is 
saying, we have a budget that is balanced. What does that mean? It 
means we are going to pay down the debt, but it is not all going to be 
cutting spending. We are going to pay down the debt by raising taxes 
and cutting spending--raise taxes $1 trillion, cut spending $1 
trillion, so

[[Page 4522]]

we have a $2 trillion reduction in the deficit. Doesn't that sound 
good? That is the kind of thing the American people would like to hear. 
It is not enough. We could do more, and we don't have to do a lot more, 
and we will have a balanced budget.
  But it doesn't do that, I say to my colleagues. It doesn't. It raises 
taxes $1 trillion, but it raises spending $1 trillion. It doesn't cut 
spending by $1 trillion, it raises spending. Therefore, we have no 
deficit reduction at all, but we have a new $1 trillion tax.
  The government is saying to the American people: We need more money. 
We don't have any way to cut any spending, and if anybody proposes 
there are abuses in the food stamp program or there are abuses in other 
programs out there or that we are wasting money on energy loans by the 
billions--Solyndra and A123s and those kinds of companies--they are 
saying all of that, but we can't save any money. There is no money to 
be saved. You just send us more money, and then we will pass it around, 
and this will stimulate the economy.
  I will conclude. I see we have some colleagues who are here. I would 
just say this: The debt we have today I have become absolutely 
convinced is too high. The gross debt of the United States is 104 
percent of our economy. It is above our GDP, which is almost $17 
trillion--that debt is almost $17 trillion now.
  What we have seen from the Rogoff and Reinhart study and from recent 
reports by the International Monetary Fund and a report by the European 
Central Bank and a report by the Bank for International Settlements--
they all say that when debt is as high as it is today in the United 
States, that begins to pull down growth.
  So my colleagues claim they have a budget that will help create jobs. 
I would say with all respect that we have a disagreement. Democrats 
believe they can tax more and spend more and borrow more and that will 
somehow create growth and prosperity. I believe we have had 4 years of 
that experiment, which I fundamentally doubted and opposed from the 
beginning, and it hasn't worked. We can't take a bucket of water from 
one end of the pool and pour it in the other and gain from it, 
especially when the bucket is going to leak--a good bit of it--in the 
process.
  So what I would say is that the debt now is so high--according to all 
of those reports, the debt of the United States is in the zone that 
they craft, that they have analyzed--when debt gets into that zone, we 
lose growth. All of those reports--Rogoff and Reinhart, IMF, European 
Central Bank, the Bank of International Settlements--say we are in that 
zone.
  So if we want to have growth, we are going to have to make our 
government leaner. We are going to have to begin to get our budget 
under control and balanced. And if we balance it by allowing growth to 
occur at 3.4 percent, without having to cut over 10 years--but if we 
allow our growth to increase at 3.4 percent instead of 5.4 percent, the 
budget balances. So we don't have to slash and burn, but we do have to 
get off the course we are on. It isn't easy, but that is what we are 
paid to do--to be responsible.
  So if we get off that course and begin to see our debt-to-GDP go 
down, which a balanced budget--even over a 10-year, responsible 
period--would do, then we will be able to actually honestly say we have 
strengthened America, we have put us on a sound path, and we have 
allowed the economy to grow again.
  There is no doubt in my mind, I say to my colleagues--and I doubt in 
theirs--that if the world were to see that the United States was on a 
path to a balanced budget, wow, they would say: Really? This debt 
spiral the United States and all of these big, fat Western nations have 
been on--maybe others can do this too. Maybe this is the place to 
invest our money.
  I believe it would help growth, help investment, help put the country 
on a sound path. I am disappointed that this budget doesn't do it.
  I respect my colleagues. We had a great time in the committee. We 
have had a good time on the floor. Senator Murray is a good chair. But 
I guess the left of the Democratic caucus has produced a budget that 
won't work. It does not meet the challenge of our time. It is deeply 
disappointing. I guess there is still some chance something might 
happen in conference. But from the looks of this budget, the chances 
are not very great, I have to say.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair for this opportunity and yield the 
floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes off the resolution to my 
friend and colleague, Senator Mikulski, the chair of the Appropriations 
Committee.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Coons.
  I probably will not take 10 minutes, but what I will speak about is 
really compelling.


                           Amendment No. 431

  Later on during the vote-arama we will be considering my amendment 
that will create a reserve fund that should we pass the Paycheck 
Fairness Act, it will in no way negate the spending within our budget. 
It is essentially the functional equivalent of a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution that the Senate should pass the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  We talk a lot about growing the economy. The economy will grow when 
people work. The people who are entering the workforce who have been 
one of the driving forces for the last 30 years are women. Although we 
are in the workforce full force, we are still not being paid equal pay 
for equal work. It is outrageous. If you want to grow the economy, pass 
paycheck fairness so we are not harassed for simply trying to find out 
what our pay is and how we can get equal pay for the same job.
  Women across America are worried about staying in the middle class if 
they are already there or getting to the middle class if they are not 
there. Nearly 50 years after passage of the Equal Pay Act, women still 
get paid less than men.
  This budget is a reflection of our values and priorities, and 
eliminating the wage gap should be one. For years I and other 
colleagues have fought for paycheck fairness. Under that act, no longer 
would employers be able to retaliate against workers for sharing 
information about wages. Right now, if you ask someone what they get 
paid, you can get fired. This bill follows on from the famous Lilly 
Ledbetter Act. Lilly herself was humiliated and harassed because she 
tried to find out what she was making.
  No longer will women be able to seek only backpay when they are 
discriminated against. Under this bill they could also seek punitive 
damages. No longer would employers be able to use almost any reason for 
paying a woman less: Oh, the men do harder jobs. Oh, they have a better 
education than you. In fact, the reverse is happening. Women entering 
the workforce are often better educated, with more academic and trade 
certifications than men who are doing it. Women are also doing hard and 
dangerous jobs. We can look at what they do in the military. We can 
look at them as firefighters, police officers, and prison guards.
  Under the legislation I am proposing, no longer will women be on 
their own in fighting for equal pay for equal work. In this country we 
say: If you work hard and play by the rules, you will get ahead. We 
work hard every day, but we find that the rules are different for women 
than for men. Actually, the rules in many workplaces are rigged against 
us.
  So I would hope that we would adopt my amendment today that would 
allow us to be able to go forward later on in the year and pass 
paycheck fairness. It is important to the women in the workplace, and 
it is important to our economy.
  Much is being said about being progrowth. Who is not progrowth? Of 
course we want to grow our economy. If we look at the tax structure, I 
believe we should reward--right now, the tax structure is tilted and 
the tax breaks that we give are to reward people who make money off of 
money, not people who make money off of products or the sweat of their 
own brow. So I think we need to take a look at the Tax Code.

[[Page 4523]]

  My State is an entrepreneurial-driven State. We are an innovation 
economy in biotech, cyber tech, space tech. At the same time, we have 
people who work hard every single day in agriculture, in poultry, in 
mining, in trying to earn a living by very hard work. I believe we 
should have a Tax Code that rewards it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, how many minutes are remaining on our side?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 48\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. COONS. Thank you, Mr. President.
  We have heard a great deal about balance in the debates on the Senate 
floor. As we move toward voting on a budget resolution, I just want to 
remind all of us in this Chamber today to keep in mind that a balanced 
path forward has broad support across all of America. Folks are looking 
for us to take a path toward steady and responsible deficit reduction, 
investing in growing our economy, investing in helping our private 
sector grow good jobs, while still honoring the pledges we have made to 
America's veterans, to our seniors, to those who rely on some of our 
most important and most treasured Federal programs--Medicare, Medicaid, 
and Social Security.
  There is a sharp contrast--and that contrast will be clear and 
clearer as this day goes on--between the values embedded in the Ryan 
budget, passed by the House, and the budget led ably by Chairman Murray 
and the Senate Democrats in the Budget Committee that will be taken up 
later today. We will be considering dozens, perhaps hundreds, of 
amendments that will touch on a very wide range of issues--from 
paycheck fairness and gender equity, as referenced by Senator Mikulski 
just a few moments ago, to issues very widely ranging--ones that I have 
helped champion on the Budget Committee that would increase investment 
in manufacturing, making sure that our manufacturing sector is more 
competitive; ones that allow us to strengthen our R&D sector, 
strengthen our education sector; ones that ensure we preserve and 
protect these valued Medicare and Medicaid programs that I referenced.
  More than anything, at the end of the day I think the challenge to 
all of us is to help the American people understand the fundamental 
difference in values reflected in these two different budgets.
  I know I will be joined in just a few minutes by colleagues who are 
coming to speak to that point, to help lay out for the American people 
the fundamental difference between these two budgets. But if I might, 
sort of at the highest level for a moment, I want to remind folks who 
might be watching, folks in the Chamber, that a budget resolution is 
quite different from the budgets that, Mr. President, you might have 
been used to as a Governor, that others of us were used to from the 
private sector or from State or county or city governments.
  A budget resolution does not have every single item to be spent by 
this government in great detail. As State budgets are submitted to 
general assemblies or legislatures, they typically have exactly how the 
State will spend its funds in the year ahead in enormous detail. This 
budget resolution sets a framework. It sets sort of top-level spending 
targets and then directs the committees of jurisdiction to achieve 
either changes to the Tax Code in the Finance Committee or changes to 
vital programs in other committees, whether Defense or HELP or others.
  So when we talk often about the values embedded in a budget 
resolution, that is, in part, because a budget resolution is just the 
beginning of a regular order, healthy budget process. It then has to be 
complemented with authorization bills and with appropriations bills.
  But if you compare the budget resolution that has already been 
adopted in the House, and that was rejected by a vote on the floor last 
night, with the budget resolution that has come out of the Senate 
Budget Committee, I think you see a few simple, stark differences. Both 
budget resolutions raise a significant amount of revenue through tax 
reform by closing so-called tax loopholes or cutting spending through 
the Tax Code. This is spending that is not reviewed every year. This is 
spending that often has been stuck into the Tax Code through the 
efforts of the wealthy and well-connected powerful interests in our 
country, that does not get reviewed every year. It is time for us to 
look seriously at our Tax Code to make it leaner, easier to understand, 
easier to enforce, more efficient, and to make our country more 
competitive.
  But a core question we have to address is, To what end do we put the 
revenue raised through changes to our Tax Code? In the House budget 
resolution, they raise, if I remember, roughly $5.7 trillion over the 
10-year budget period--all of which is dedicated to reducing the tax 
rates on the wealthiest Americans and on the most profitable 
corporations, reducing rates on corporations and individuals.
  The much smaller amount raised in our budget plan--$975 billion over 
10 years, through cutting spending through the Tax Code--is dedicated 
to deficit reduction.
  The balanced path we have talked about--that balances reduction in 
the deficit through new revenue raised by reforms to the Tax Code with 
comparable spending reductions across all areas of our budget--is the 
sort of balanced plan that was on the ballot, that was a critical part 
of the 2012 election process, and that I frankly think the American 
people have broadly embraced.
  We have put forward a budget that meets the values agenda that our 
Democratic Budget Committee stands behind: to invest in critical areas 
of our economy, whether infrastructure, education, or R&D to help lift 
the private sector and help grow jobs again; to keep our most vital 
commitments to seniors and to veterans and to those most at risk in our 
society, while still making responsible, steady progress toward 
reducing our crippling deficit and debt. We get the deficit down to 
less than 3 percent of GDP. At the end of the 10-year period, we 
stabilize our publicly held debt at 70 percent of GDP. These are the 
targets broadly agreed on by every major bipartisan group that has 
looked at the challenges facing the United States, our economy, and our 
budget.
  I will remind you that the Bowles-Simpson Commission--a bipartisan 
commission--came up with a rough target of $4 trillion in savings over 
a decade. This plan, this budget resolution, would achieve--in fact, 
would exceed--that target in a way that has balance and, I believe, is 
responsible.
  I would be happy to talk further then, if I might, Mr. President, 
about some of the other issues contained both within our budget 
resolution and, in contrast, within the budget resolution coming over 
from the House.
  As a number of my colleagues have spoken about movingly on the Senate 
floor in recent days, one of the most important differences is in the 
future of the fundamental entitlement programs that are a part of the 
progressive legacy of FDR and LBJ and that were put in place with both 
Republicans and Democrats over many years, strengthening and sustaining 
them. We see a fundamental difference in direction between what has 
happened in the House and what we have proposed in the Senate.
  To put it simply, in the House they would change Medicare from a 
Federal guarantee, from a program that provides health care to millions 
of Americans, to a voucher program, one where what the Federal 
Government provides is not a guarantee but premium support, a voucher, 
something that would shift costs onto seniors, onto States, and onto 
communities. In Medicaid, in my view, even worse--because it supports 
the most vulnerable in our country--they would turn it into a block 
grant. This would shift more than $800 billion onto the balance sheets 
of States.
  To talk further about these important differences and the values 
between the House and the Senate budgets, and to talk about its impact 
on the future of the United States, I yield 7 minutes to my colleague 
from the State of Rhode Island, Senator Whitehouse.

[[Page 4524]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I thank Senator Coons.
  The Senate budget resolution that we have worked so hard on would, 
first, replace the harmful budget sequester, the effects of which are 
only beginning to be felt in our communities--with balanced deficit 
reduction. Second, it would invest in our crumbling roads, bridges, and 
water infrastructure. Our engineers give our infrastructure a D-plus. 
Clearly, we need to make that investment, and it would support 
continued job creation and economic growth.
  Despite this sensible, balanced approach, not a single Republican 
supported this budget in committee. Republicans prefer to raid the 
programs that the middle class depends on, while protecting the rich 
and the well-connected.
  A CBS News poll conducted last September shows that 78 percent of 
Americans favor continuing the current guarantee of Medicare coverage 
for seniors--78 percent. But the Republican budget would gut Medicare, 
turning it into a voucher program for those 55 and under--basically 
putting Medicare into a death spiral. And it would end the Medicare 
guarantee that has been the pillar of American retirement for half a 
century.
  More than 3 million seniors right now save an average of $700 a year 
on prescriptions because we closed the dread doughnut hole. Well, the 
Republican budget throws them right back in the doughnut hole, forcing 
today's seniors to pay an additional $700 a year, on average, out of 
pocket.
  Sixty million Americans got to college and were able to seize their 
dreams because of Pell grants. The Republican plan cuts Pell grants, 
dropping an estimated million students in this vital program. This Ryan 
Republican plan to turn Medicare into a voucher program is so extreme 
and so radical that even Republicans are speaking out against it.
  Congressman David McKinley voted against the Ryan budget. He said, 
``My home State of West Virginia has the highest percentage of Medicare 
beneficiaries in the country, and I cannot support a plan that the 
Congressional Budget Office has determined would nearly double out-of-
pocket healthcare costs for future retirees.''
  Of course, former Speaker Newt Gingrich described this plan as 
``right-wing social engineering.'' This Republican budget makes 
enormous mystery cuts in the budget. Chairman Ryan claims he can cut 
$900 billion of appropriated domestic spending over the next 10 years. 
That means border security, that means the FBI, that means medical 
research, that means student financial aid, that means the grants that 
support our efforts to combat violence against women.
  Under the extreme radical Republican budget, domestic discretionary 
spending will fall to its lowest level as a share of GDP since we 
started keeping track in 1962. There were not even Pell grants in 1962. 
There was not even Medicare in 1962. Their future is our distant past.
  Chairman Ryan would push $810 billion onto our States to shift costs 
to the States for Medicaid, and find another mystery $962 billion in 
unspecified entitlement grants. He boasts that the Republican budget 
repeals ObamaCare but he puts all of the savings from ObamaCare in the 
budget.
  He cannot have it both ways. It is not even an honest budget. It is 
politically, mathematically, and logically unrealistic. It is not a 
balanced budget so much as magical thinking. Even if the unrealistic 
program cuts in the Republican budget could be made, the plan ignores 
the economic damage that would result.
  We have had the austerity experience. We have had the austerity 
experience in Europe. The evidence is in. Deep austerity cuts in Spain, 
Greece and Portugal caused persistent double-digit unemployment and 
negative growth rates. We may be impatient with our unemployment rate, 
we may be impatient with our low positive growth rate, but the 
countries that tried what the Republicans want to do have double-digit, 
26-percent unemployment rates. Their economic growth is negative. Their 
economies are shrinking.
  The Wall Street Journal just reported that industrial production in 
the UK after its austerity plans has fallen to its lowest level in 22 
years and the country is looking at a third recession. The Republicans 
who want to emulate European austerity should consider what Jeremy 
Warner said in the conservative Daily Telegraph.

       This is a truly desperate state of affairs. . . . We seem 
     to have the worst of all possible worlds, with nil growth, 
     some very obvious cuts in the quantity and quality of public 
     services, but pretty much zero progress in getting on top of 
     the country's debts.

  That should be a warning. Not only is the Ryan Republican budget's 
magical thinking unrealistic, it is unfair. It achieves 100 percent of 
its deficit reduction by cutting government programs that benefit lower 
and middle-income Americans, while getting nothing--not one dime--from 
wealthy Americans or corporations. In fact, it would cut the high-end 
tax rate for corporations and wealthy individuals. It adds more tax 
breaks for the rich and well-connected, and goes after the lower and 
middle-class families.
  The Republican budget cuts total education and workforce training, 
for instance, by an estimated 47 percent. It cuts $135 billion out of 
the food stamp program, which helps feed the poorest Americans. At the 
same time, if you are making over $1 million, it offers you an average 
tax cut of $330,000.
  For the kind of money the Ryan Republican budget wants to give to the 
rich and the well-connected, they have to come after the middle class. 
Chairman Ryan's tax cut would require $5.5 trillion in new revenue. To 
cover that pricetag, President Clinton revealed the hard truth. I will 
quote President Bill Clinton:

       . . . they'll have to eliminate so many deductions, like 
     the ones for home mortgages and charitable giving, that 
     middle-class families will see their tax bills go up.

  That is the promise of the Ryan Republican budget--middle-class 
families will see their tax bills go up. We do not. We take 7 percent 
out of that, which means we can focus on the corporate tax spending, we 
can focus on the high-end deductions, on the carried interest 
exception, so we do not have to go after the middle-class tax cuts.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Let me close by reading one thing. We have just 
welcomed a new Pope. The Conference of Catholic Bishops had this to say 
about the Ryan budget last year:

       Congress faces a difficult task to balance needs and 
     resources and allocate burdens and sacrifices. Just 
     solutions, however, must require shared sacrifice by all, 
     including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary 
     military and other spending, and fairly addressing the long-
     term costs of health insurance and retirement programs. The 
     House-passed budget resolution fails to meet these moral 
     criteria.

  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am pleased to yield up to 10 minutes 
to Senator Cruz of Texas.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I want to thank my friend from Rhode Island 
for his stirring remarks and, indeed, his powerful arguments against 
this Nation going down the road of Greece and Spain and much of Europe. 
Those were indeed compelling statistics of 27-percent unemployment in 
Greece, and negative nearly 7-percent growth in Greece. I found myself 
moved looking at those statistics that all of us should act, and act 
with leadership, to prevent going down that road, to stop the out-of-
control spending, the out-of-control debt that put Greece and Spain in 
those circumstances.
  We are right now in a situation where our Nation faces debt larger 
than our entire economy, greater than 100 percent of our entire 
economy. That is where the United States is right now. I would suggest 
the irresponsible policies of this Congress and

[[Page 4525]]

this administration are why we are seeing stagnant growth. Last 
quarter, our economy grew 0.1 percent. I found the speech of my friend 
from Rhode Island quite powerful for arguing why every Member of this 
body should vote against the Democratic budget that will be coming up 
for a vote, because it is clear that raising taxes $1.5 trillion on top 
of the $1.7 trillion tax increase that has already been put in place 
will only accelerate our path to where Greece and Spain and much of 
Europe are.
  Adopting a budget that never balances in perpetuity, as sadly the 
Democratic budget does, will only accelerate our path to where Greece 
and Europe are. So I thank my friend for that stirring recitation.
  I would note also that tomorrow is an important milestone. Tomorrow 
is the 3-year anniversary of the adoption of ObamaCare. As we vote 
later today, I will be introducing an amendment to establish a deficit-
neutral reserve fund to provide for the repeal of ObamaCare.
  ObamaCare was passed with many promises. Yet the reality is it has 
not delivered. When ObamaCare was being proposed, the President told 
Americans, the average American family would see our premiums drop by 
$2,500. Instead, today, the average American family has seen our 
premiums rise by $3,000. That is a $5,500 difference between what was 
promised and what has been delivered.
  Young people in particular have been hit incredibly hard by 
ObamaCare. The actuaries predict that young people trying to climb the 
economic ladder could see their premiums rise anywhere between 145 
percent and 189 percent.
  Seniors also have been hit severely by ObamaCare. As a result of 
ObamaCare, some 14 million, nearly 15 million seniors are on Medicare 
Advantage. Half of them will lose their Medicare Advantage coverage as 
a result of ObamaCare. Seven million seniors will lose Medicare 
Advantage. I would note, a very large percentage of those are low-
income seniors, are Hispanic seniors, are African-American seniors.
  Every one of us should ask, when confronted with Hispanic seniors in 
our State, why is it that we are content to see 7 million seniors lose 
their Medicare Advantage program. I would suggest we should not be.
  Last Wednesday, all 45 Republicans stood united voting in support of 
an amendment I offered to delay funding ObamaCare at least until our 
economy gets growing. Our economy is stagnant right now. It is not 
growing. Last quarter it was 0.8 percent. Sadly, every Democrat who 
voted voted to continue implementing ObamaCare even as the economy is 
gasping for breath and to risk very potentially knocking this Nation 
into a recession.
  I would urge this body to reconsider this decision, when so many 
people are hurting, not to put the kind of impact that could send this 
country backwards into a recession. ObamaCare itself includes some 20 
tax increases, over $1 trillion. Many in this body talk about the 
middle class. Many of those tax increases fall directly on the middle 
class.
  Yesterday, over 70 members of this body voted against the medical 
devices tax. I celebrate that. That is a terrific recognition of the 
tax burdens of ObamaCare. I hope that amendment is not simply voted on 
in an aspirational sense, but that it becomes law and we repeal that 
amendment. But I would suggest the medical devices industry, a critical 
industry, employs a virtual army of lobbyists. The lesson yesterday 
illustrated is if you are wealthy, if you are connected, if you are an 
important industry with lobbyists that can get Senators to come to 
cocktail parties, you too can see some of the burdens of ObamaCare 
perhaps lifted from you.
  But as we voted for that--I happily voted to lift that tax--it struck 
me, what about the millions of small businesses that do not have 
lobbyists in Washington, that do not have the ability to corral 
Senators and say: It is so important that this burden not fall on me. 
We respond, quite rightly, to the pleas from one power industry and yet 
we ignore the pleas from the mom-and-pop shops, from the millions who 
are struggling.
  I will note, if you look at the Hispanic community, there are 2.3 
million Hispanic small business owners in this country. Roughly one in 
eight Hispanic households is a small business owner. But you know what. 
They do not have lobbyists here who capture the attention of some 70 
Senators. Instead, they face the costs and the burdens from ObamaCare.
  I want to read to this body a couple of recent press stories 
illustrating that this is not a Republican talking point or a 
Democratic talking point. These are the facts. This is what is 
happening under ObamaCare. The Associated Press on March 13, 2013, so 
just earlier this month, reported--this is the opening line of the 
story:

       Some Americans could see their insurance bills double next 
     year as the health care overhaul laws expand coverage to 
     millions of people.

  It goes on to say:

       The biggest price hikes are expected to hit a group that 
     represents a relatively small slice of the insurance 
     population. That includes some roughly 14 million people who 
     buy their own insurance as opposed to being covered under 
     employer-sponsored plans, and to a lesser extent some 
     employees of smaller companies. Yet again, the impact of 
     ObamaCare hitting small businesses, hitting the struggling 
     entrepreneurs.

  I would note, two-thirds of all new jobs in our economy come from 
small businesses. If this body continues to make it harder for small 
businesses to survive, we will continue to see 23 million Americans out 
of work, because the new jobs are going to come from small businesses, 
and we cannot continue to put more and more costs and burdens on them.
  The Associated Press continued:

       Young people who currently have low-cost coverage may see 
     some of the biggest hikes.

  To all of the college kids right now who stood for ``hope and 
change,'' to all of the young people who are coming out of school 
struggling to find jobs and are not able to find jobs right now, I 
would point out that what the Associated Press reported is that alone, 
the ObamaCare impact could cause the premium for a 24-year-old who pays 
$2,400 annually to jump $1,800. As their resumes go up, as they see 
additional dollars taken out of their pockets, as they are struggling 
to climb the economic ladder, I hope the young people realize the cause 
for those impacts.
  Just this week, the Washington Post, hardly a bastion for 
conservative thought, had a major story headlined ``Health-care law 
uncertainty grips Old Town Alexandria cafe--and other small 
businesses.'' It explained there is a cafe in Old Town Alexandria which 
employs 45 people. The owner says:

       There is tremendous confusion and fear among many of my 
     competitors and other business owners in my network, 
     particularly about what you have to cover and how you have to 
     report.

  This comment was by Hugh Joyce, owner of James River Air Conditioning 
in Richmond. Continuing:

       In speaking to them, I am convinced that the primary reason 
     we aren't seeing a robust economic recovery is the 
     uncertainty and costs associated with this health-care law.

  This is from a small business owner saying why don't we see growth, 
why don't we see the economy blooming? Because ObamaCare stays in force 
and it is crippling jobs.
  The Washington Post continues:

       One in eight small-business owners who responded to a 
     survey by the National Federation of Independent Business 
     said their insurance providers had notified them that their 
     plans would be terminated. A study released last week by 
     Adecco, a human resources consulting firm, showed that nearly 
     a third of employers said they stopped hiring or cut their 
     workforce because of the law.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has used his 10 
minutes.
  Mr. CRUZ. I urge ObamaCare be repealed.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise to offer support for an amendment 
I will be offering, No. 198, which establishes a deficit-neutral 
reserve fund to protect the benefits of disabled veterans and their 
survivors, which may or may not include CPI.

[[Page 4526]]

  This amendment is supported by the American Legion, which is the 
largest veterans organization in our country, AARP, the Veterans of 
Foreign Wars, AFL-CIO, Disabled American Veterans, National Committee 
to Preserve Social Security & Medicare, Gold Star Wives, and Alliance 
for Retired Americans. This amendment is supported by every veterans 
organization, every major senior organization, 12 million workers in 
the AFL-CIO, every disability organization, and the National 
Organization for Women.
  Why are they all supporting this amendment? They understand at a time 
when millions and millions of veterans are struggling to keep their 
heads above water economically, when we have millions of seniors today 
who are having a difficult time purchasing the prescription drug they 
need, food they need, and the ability to heat their homes, it is cruel 
and immoral to turn our backs on veterans and seniors to make 
disastrous cuts for the benefits of disabled veterans and for seniors.
  Under the chained CPI, a disabled veteran who started receiving 
disability benefits at age 30 would have their benefits cut by more 
than $1,400 at age 25, $2,300 at age 55, and $3,200 at age 65.
  Memorial Day is coming. I know many of my colleagues around the 
country will give speeches to veterans and tell veterans how much they 
support and respect the sacrifices they have made. It is time to go 
beyond fine rhetoric and fine speeches if we are serious about 
protecting the needs of veterans. Now is the time to stand tall. They 
have protected us. Now our job is to protect them. It is wrong to 
balance the budget on the backs of disabled veterans, pure and simple.
  What the chained CPI would do to seniors on Social Security is 
equally bad. In my State we have many seniors--and I daresay in Maine 
as well--who this winter wonder how they will find the money they need 
to heat their homes and to purchase the prescription drugs they need. 
Many of them are living on $13,000, $14,000 or $15,000 a year on Social 
Security benefits. The chained CPI would say to them, if you are 65 
today, by the time you are 75, your benefits would be cut by some $650 
a year. By the time you are 85, your benefits would be cut by $1,000 a 
year.
  I will offer another amendment above and beyond the chained CPI, 
which makes the point every single year we are losing tens and tens of 
billions of dollars. The largest corporations in this country are 
putting their money in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda and paying zero--
zero--in Federal income tax. One out of four profitable major 
corporations pays nothing in Federal income tax, including some of the 
Wall Street firms we bailed out a few years ago.
  What this whole debate is about is how do we go forward with deficit 
reduction in a way which is fair, a way which is moral, and a way which 
calls for good economic policy. I would argue when some of the largest 
corporations in America pay zero in Federal income taxes, before we cut 
Social Security and benefits for disabled veterans, ask those people to 
start paying their fair share of taxes.
  We are in a horrendous recession. Real unemployment is over 14 
percent, counting those who have given up looking for work and are 
working part-time. Median family income since 1999 has gone down by 
$5,000.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SANDERS. Let us not balance the budget on the backs of the most 
vulnerable people in our country.
  I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Whitehouse to my amendment No. 
198.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. If I might, I simply wanted to reassure those who might be 
watching in the Chamber the Democratic budget and resolution which is 
pending on the floor reflects some of our most fundamental values and 
makes responsible progress toward reducing our deficit. We have already 
done more than $2.4 trillion toward deficit reduction since the time 
the Bowles-Simpson Commission suggested an overall target in reduction 
of $4 trillion in Federal spending. With this additional $1.85 
trillion, we will get to about $4.25 trillion. We are making 
responsible progress.
  As my colleague from Vermont and many others have come to the floor 
and spoken about, we need to do this in a way which still keeps our 
commitments to America's seniors, America's veterans, and the most low-
income and vulnerable in our communities. We need to do it in a way 
which both stabilizes our deficit and debt, makes critical investments 
in growing our economy, and preserves the core of the programs on which 
Americans rely.
  This is not just about numbers, it is also about values. It is also 
about priorities.
  If I might, before I yield to the full committee chair, I wish to say 
I am grateful to Chairman Murray for everything she has done to bring 
us to this point. In the 3 years in which I have served in the Senate 
as a member of the Budget Committee, we have not had a budget 
resolution on this floor.
  The very difficult and very long process we are about to go through 
may be a reminder of how challenging legislative compromise can be. It 
is my hope we may engage in a thorough and vigorous debate and yet by 
the end of this legislative day we will have a budget out of the 
Senate.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. As we consider the budget which is before us today, I 
would call my colleagues' attention to the fact that the Democratic 
budget, the Murray budget, was voted down in the House of 
Representatives 2 days ago by 107 votes. One-fifth of the Democrats, 
one out of five, 20 percent, voted against this budget. No Republicans 
voted for it.
  This may be because, as Politico said, ``to win over her caucus, 
Murray begins from the left of Obama himself.'' With regard to 
independent evaluations of the budget, the United States USA Today 
editorial on March 15 said this:

       The plan produced by the Senate Budget Committee Chair, 
     Patty Murray, D-Wash, is a disappointing document. It is a 
     namby-pamby plan that underwhelms at every turn.
       The Murray budget neither balances the budget nor reigns in 
     entitlements.

  It would help the Nation's Democrats if they were to embrace the goal 
of a Ryan budget.
  This is the view of USA Today, the largest print in the country.
  The Washington Post said on March 15: ``This document, gives voters 
no reason to believe that Democrats have a viable plan for--or even a 
responsible public assessment of--the country's long-term fiscal 
predicament.''
  The Wall Street Journal, Investment Business Daily, The Hill, all of 
these have comments in somewhat the same vein.
  What is our problem? Our problem is spending.
  People say: Sessions, this is just what Republicans say, and we say 
it is not taxing the rich enough.
  There is a fundamental issue about spending. I dealt with and asked 
questions of Mr. Elmendorf, our CBO Director, on this very subject. It 
went to this point: Colleagues, we need to understand it. The American 
people need to understand it. Taxes, whatever rate they are, tend to 
grow with the economy. If the economy is going up 2 percent, more 
people make a little more money and taxes tend to go up 2 percent.
  If the economy is growing at 2 percent and your spending is going up 
5.4 percent, then you have a problem. You could raise taxes.
  I asked Mr. Elmendorf about this. Even though we had a trillion-
dollar deficit last year, a 1,000-plus billion-dollar deficit last 
year--unbelievable debt--almost 35 percent of the money we spent last 
year was borrowed. We will pay interest on that for decades to come. 
There is no plan to pay it down in any significant way.
  I asked Mr. Elmendorf, if we raise taxes, instead of $650 billion as 
we did in January, if we raised them enough to balance the budget, 
would we stay in balance.
  He acknowledged, if the economy continues to grow at 2 percent and

[[Page 4527]]

growth of spending is at 5 percent, we will immediately be back into a 
problem area.
  In one sense, this is the very definition of unsustainability. This 
is the very definition of the problem we have that spending is growing 
faster than the economy. It cannot maintain itself at that rate.
  We can spend, and we can say we have a balanced plan, a balanced 
program, a balanced approach, as my colleagues have done. They know 
this budget never balances, not in 1 year, not in 10 years, not in 50 
years. It will become worse in the second 10 years. It absolutely will 
be worse.
  This is the path which, as Senator Cruz just indicated, Greece, 
Spain, and Italy have followed. This is why they are in trouble.
  My colleagues say the economy isn't growing well, and it is not. We 
had virtually zero growth last quarter, zero. We are supposed to be 
moving out of the recession. As I pointed out last night, the CBO, for 
the last several years, has been predicting 4 percent growth but not 
this year. After missing about 2 percentage points for the last several 
years, they are predicting low growth this year.
  What do our colleagues say? They say they have a balanced approach. 
They keep stating this.
  I grew up in the country, where I went to a great little school. 
There were 30 in my senior class. I am proud of my classmates. My 
classmate is now president of the University of Alabama--out of our 
little class.
  I know what a balanced approach means. It means nothing. A balanced 
approach is an unaccountable statement. It provides no ability for the 
American people to ascertain whether we are doing anything they promise 
because they don't promise anything. We promised a balanced approach. 
What does that mean?
  Does it mean we raise taxes and cut spending by the same amount, $1 
trillion each or does it mean we raise taxes by $1 trillion and raise 
spending by $1 trillion? They want us to believe they raise taxes by $1 
trillion, they cut spending $1 trillion, and reduce the deficit $2 
trillion. That is what they are suggesting to the American people. They 
are using the word ``balance'' and they hope people will hear it and 
think this means we have a balanced budget. They know they do not have 
a balanced budget. They won't tell the American people they do not have 
one, they just use the word. But it is not in their document.
  Where and when do we hold people accountable in this Senate for an 
accurate statement of legislation? It is wrong. We have counted so 
far--this is pretty incredible--I think they have used the word 
``balance'' 191 times. Does that reflect a guilty conscience or 
something, that they want people to think we have a balanced budget? We 
think we have a plan to get to a balanced budget. Oh, we have a 
balanced approach. But what does that mean? It means zero. The American 
people need to know this plan has no vision for America and it 
misrepresents what it does.
  I know it is hard to write a budget with the Democratic Conference, 
which Politico says is being written from the left--by President Obama 
himself. I think that is probably accurate. The President's plan is 
irresponsible also. He has no real plan to do any of this, and he has 
publicly stated he does not think a balanced budget is important.
  May I ask the Chair--we are moving along here, and I know there are 
other speakers coming, probably on both sides--to clarify our time 
situation and what the status is?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama has 17 
minutes remaining and the Senator from Washington has 25 minutes 50 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. All right, fair enough.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am very proud of the balance we have 
put forward in our budget that makes sure all Americans in this country 
participate in solving the great crisis in front of us in terms of 
managing our debt and deficit. We are doing exactly what the American 
people have asked us to do--making sure that everyone participates.
  To me, as someone who has been involved for a long time in taking 
care of my own family and my community, balance is an important word, 
and I am very proud of the balance we put into this in terms of the 
American public.
  Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to speak to amendment No. 202 by 
Senator Cruz, which we will be voting on shortly.
  The Senator from Texas informed us that the amendment would repeal 
the Affordable Care Act. Well, that approach has already been rejected 
by the electorate, I would just reference, in the last election. Also, 
we have had more than 35 separate votes in the Congress about that and 
we have always upheld the Affordable Care Act. But I want to focus 
Senators' attention on something that is in the Cruz amendment that 
they may not know.
  When we passed the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 
2010, not only did it contain the health care portion of it, but it 
also had a portion in there on education. What we did was to stop that 
old system of subsidizing banks for student loans and changed it into a 
direct loan program.
  That was about a $61 billion transfer from the banks getting these 
risk-free government subsidies to basically putting it in so that 
students could get more of the money. So under that provision, for 
example, $36 billion of those savings went to increasing the Pell 
grants. So now we have a higher Pell grant award and it is indexed to 
the rising cost of living.
  The Cruz amendment--maybe the Senator didn't understand it when he 
drafted it--in the drafting of it, does away with that. So if my 
colleagues vote for the Cruz amendment, they are, in fact, voting to 
cut Pell grants. Go back and tell your colleges and universities that. 
You may not know that, but that is what is in that Cruz amendment.
  Also, $2.55 billion went to investments in historically Black 
colleges and universities serving minority students. That would be cut 
out with the Cruz amendment. Another $2 billion went to community 
colleges, and that would be cut out by the Cruz amendment.
  So it is not just the Affordable Care Act, folks, that is being cut 
or done away with by the Cruz amendment but all of the things we did to 
bolster education for minority students and for disadvantaged students, 
and in raising the Pell grants. I would ask my colleagues to talk to 
their private colleges, talk to their universities in their States and 
see what they think about this. See what they think about cutting down 
on the Pell grants. That would be the exact result of passing the Cruz 
amendment.
  There is one other thing we did in that portion of the reconciliation 
bill. We also put in place a more generous income-based repayment 
system so that students who graduate from college can base their 
repayment on a smaller portion of their discretionary income. We capped 
it. We capped the student loan repayment to 10 percent of discretionary 
income so that when students get out and get a job, they only have to 
pay a maximum of 10 percent of their discretionary income to repay 
their student loans. That would be done away with in the Cruz 
amendment. I wanted to point that out. Maybe the Senator didn't realize 
it when he drafted the amendment, but that is the way it is drafted and 
that is the way the vote will occur. So if my colleagues think they are 
just voting to do away with the Affordable Care Act, look again at the 
amendment. It is not just that, it is education funding also. So I 
wanted to point that out.
  We are going to hear a lot about a lot of bad amendments coming up 
today, but this is truly a very bad amendment. Maybe it should have 
been drafted differently to accomplish what the Senator from Texas 
wanted. If that was a clean vote on doing away with the Affordable Care 
Act, fine, if he wants

[[Page 4528]]

to do that, but the way it is drafted it cuts Pell grants, assistance 
for community colleges, and all the things we did to help students get 
a higher education in this country. I wanted to let Senators know that.
  If I have at least 30 seconds or 60 seconds left, Mr. President.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am happy to yield 3 additional minutes 
to the Senator from Iowa.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I invite all Senators, before we start 
voting today, to read the Washington Post this morning, the front-page 
story: ``On Montana Reservation, Cuts Hit Hard.'' It talks about the 
Fort Peck reservation and what is going to happen there to these 
students and these families on this reservation. Please read it. 
Please.
  How can we be so cruel? How can we be so heartless? How can we be so 
immune from understanding the impact of the sequester and what is 
happening to poor kids? This is one classic example.
  As one teacher there said: You know, if you have a lot and you cut 5 
percent, that is not much. But when you don't have anything, cutting 5 
percent really hurts.
  The article talks about how much they are going to lose in their Head 
Start Program, how many students are going to lose because they do not 
have support systems on the reservation. It tears your heart out to 
read this.
  I think about the kind of votes we are going to be having today and 
the impact of those votes on these kids and these families on this 
reservation. They have no place else to turn. They have no place else 
to turn. It is not as though they have property taxes on the 
reservation. They do not have that. They do not have businesses there. 
They do not have anything. But you know what I would like most of all 
for colleagues to know? One person was quoted as saying: This is not 
something we are giving our Native Americans, this is something we owe 
them. This is something we owe them. Read your history--all the land we 
took from them. Helping them on reservations is not a gift. We owe them 
this. And now we are pulling the rug out from underneath them.
  Read about this young girl whose mother committed suicide and her 
father is in a drug treatment program in Minnesota. She is 15 years old 
and she is trying to make it, yet we are telling her--basically, with 
our votes here and with this sequester--we don't care. I ask people to 
read that before we start voting today and let your conscience be your 
guide.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Iowa for 
his long-time passion for young people in this country. As chair of the 
Education and Health Committee, he has committed his time to making 
sure those who are least among us have opportunity in this country. 
That is so important. He has spoken eloquently against the Cruz 
amendment, reminding all of us that amendment isn't just about 
repealing health care but actually taking away the ability for students 
to be able to go to college on Pell grants and student loans.
  I would not be standing in front of us today if our country hadn't 
invested in me way back to give me the ability to go to college on 
student loans and Pell grants. So I want to thank him, on behalf of a 
very grateful country, for his long-time work on this. And as we all 
know, the Senator will be retiring. We will miss his voice, but his 
passion will always remain here.
  With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I do have some remarks, and we will be having some 
speakers, who I think are on the way.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I withhold my request.
  I thank the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Well, the Ryan budget is not going to get rid of Pell 
grants. Is that the level of debate we have degenerated to here? The 
Ryan budget says we are not going to try to balance the budget too 
quickly. We are going to do it over 10 years. We will reach a balance.
  We have calculated--and it is not disputed--that you can increase 
spending every year 3.4 percent and the budget will balance. You don't 
have to cut spending. When they talk about cuts, they are talking about 
reducing the projected rate of growth, and that is why we are going 
broke. That is why this country is losing its moorings. We have defined 
cutting spending as reducing the rate of growth.
  You cannot sustain 5-percent growth--5.4-percent growth--when your 
economy is growing at 2 percent. And the experts tell us we are at a 
new normal and we are not going to see 5-percent growth in the future--
not likely. We might have a year or two of it. Bill Gross and his group 
at PIMCO, the great bond company, coined the phrase ``the new normal,'' 
and the new normal is that a mature economy such as ours, with an aging 
population, is not going to sustain some of the 9- and 10-percent 
growth rates that new and developing nations that are down here can 
achieve. I think that is probably something we have to accommodate, but 
we need to have policies that create as much growth as possible. That 
is absolutely true.
  We had no growth last quarter--zero. The Congressional Budget Office 
has been predicting 3- and 4-percent growth the last 3 years. It is not 
there. It is not happening. The reason it is not happening is we have 
too much debt. The studies of the European Central Bank, the 
International Monetary Fund, the Bank of International Settlements, and 
the magnificent ``This Time It's Different'' by Rogoff and Reinhart 
demonstrate that statistically, empirically, when nations have this 
high a debt--we are at 104 percent of GDP, and Rogoff and Reinhart used 
the gross debt of America, which is almost $17 trillion now, comparing 
the gross debt to the size of our economy--that the debt we are 
carrying is larger than our economy and we have to pay interest on 
that.
  There are a lot of other ramifications and instabilities and concerns 
that ripple through businesses and foreign investors who are going to 
create jobs in America, but all sorts of people lose confidence in the 
country when the debt reaches that high. They say, from their studies 
of over 200 years of every country that has gone into fiscal crisis, 
that the debt began to pull them down. They conclude--these Harvard 
professors--that we could lose 1 to 2 percent of growth.
  We are not growing. This is the slowest recovery from a recession 
since World War II, and I don't think this debt has been recognized in 
and of itself as a detriment to the economy. But what do our colleagues 
say the answer is? Tax more on the economy and borrow more. Don't 
reduce our debt. Get the sugar high now, as Mr. Gross at PIMCO said. 
All this borrowing and spending creates a sugar high and you have a 
hangover later.
  This is so simple. You can't create something from nothing. You know, 
Julie Andrews had that great, great song in the ``Sound of Music,'' 
``Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could.''
  I met a man in Evergreen, AL, in a townhall meeting, who said: My 
daddy always said that you cannot borrow your way out of debt.
  We need to listen to that kind of logic. I don't know who these 
people are who say that Paul Krugman said we can borrow, borrow, 
borrow. The other day, he said he didn't care--even if the Defense 
Department had a wasteful program. He said that we should not cut those 
programs. How ridiculous is that? I think that kind of thinking is the 
drive behind this budget, that we have to keep spending even if we keep 
running up the debt and somehow that is going to make America better 
and create economic growth.
  I am worried about our working people. They are not doing well. Wages 
have not gone up in a decade. They are slipping below inflation. It is 
an absolute fact that has happened. The smart people in high-tech 
companies are doing well. A lot of them are making money. There are 
certain sectors of the

[[Page 4529]]

economy that are doing well, but the economy itself is not moving, and 
I believe the net reason is revealed in the Rogoff-Reinhart analysis, 
which says that higher debt pulls down growth. So we have to do what 
families do and States have done and cities have done, and that is to 
tighten our belts a little bit.
  We are proud of the food stamp program, also known as the SNAP 
program, but we find that it has all kinds of fraud and abuse in it, 
and it needs to be tightened up. I reject the idea that it is bad for 
the economy or will hurt people who are legitimately in need of food. 
We have not done anything like that since the 1996 welfare reform. We 
need to be doing that throughout the government.
  One of the ways to create economic growth is to make American 
Government more productive and lean. Wouldn't that help? Let's ask this 
question: Is Mr. Krugman right? Should the government just spend 
regardless of whether the program is any good? Shouldn't we say to 
ourselves: Isn't it clear without any real dispute that if our 
government spent its money on things that are productive for America, 
this would make America stronger? We have to eliminate every single 
wasteful program. We don't have a single dollar to waste.
  Our colleagues here are saying to the American people that there is 
nothing wrong. Our government is fine. We cannot cut any program. If we 
do, we will deny kids the right to go to college.
  There is no reason Pell grants have to be salvaged, but maybe they 
need to be constricted a little bit. Maybe there are some abuses in 
those programs.
  The growth of spending can increase every year at 3.4 percent. We are 
not required to damage, savage, or devastate the American economy to 
get the budget balanced. I appreciate the opportunity to share these 
remarks. I really believe the budget process is a bit messy and 
frustrating, but it is a good one. It has allowed us all to talk 
honestly about the great choices we face.
  I am pleased to see Senator Thune, a supporter of the leadership on 
the Republican side, an outstanding Senator and longtime member of the 
Budget Committee who has been engaged in the financial issues of our 
time for quite a number of years.
  I yield to Senator Thune at this time.
  Mr. THUNE. If I might, I thank the distinguished ranking member of 
the Budget Committee for yielding, and I will pose a question to the 
Senator, if I might.
  I heard Senator Sessions say earlier and put up a chart which 
suggested that the term ``balanced'' had been used 191 times by the 
other side in the course of this debate. Is that correct?
  Mr. SESSIONS. That is correct. We probably missed a few.
  Mr. THUNE. That may be an incomplete count, but nevertheless the 
Senator and his staff counted 191 times where the word ``balanced'' has 
been used. As the Senator from Alabama very fittingly pointed out, 
there is nothing balanced about this budget. In fact, this budget 
doesn't balance in 10 years; it doesn't ever balance.
  The other thing I would suggest to my colleague from Alabama is that 
in the course of the debate, it has become clear to me--and I think 
clear to anybody who has been observing this--that the so-called 
balanced approach they advocate is anything but balanced.
  We have a $1.5 trillion tax increase. We have a spending increase 
that is at 62 percent over the course of the next decade--a net 
spending increase notwithstanding their assertions that somehow this is 
a reduction in spending. The whole idea that this is ``a balanced 
approach'' strikes me as a big charade. I think that is what this 
entire budget is. That is why all the editorial pages across the 
country, including those from newspapers that are not considered the 
least bit conservative--many of us in the Chamber who are on this side 
of the aisle expect most of the newspapers around the country and their 
editorial pages to attack Republicans and Republican budgets--have 
absolutely eviscerated in their editorial comments the budget that has 
been put forth by the Senate Democrats. I think it is simply because it 
is anything but balanced.
  When they used the word ``balanced'' 191 times on the floor of the 
Senate with regard to this debate, if we think about the ``balanced 
approach'' they talk about--even when we were dealing with the fiscal 
cliff, they talked about a balanced approach, but there was no balance 
there. It was all tax increases. There was a $620 billion tax increase. 
Over the course of the President's first term, we got a $1 trillion tax 
increase with ObamaCare. If we add those together with some other tax 
increases that have been added on, we are at $1.7 trillion in new 
taxes--or new revenues, as they say.
  We want balance. Well, we have $1.7 trillion in new revenue already, 
and then they are talking about another $1.5 trillion in taxes. Really? 
Where is the balance in that? This is all about raising taxes and 
growing government at the expense of the economy.
  I say to my colleague from Alabama, we are going to vote on an 
amendment pretty soon by the Senator from New Hampshire, Ms. Ayotte, 
that raises a point of order against any tax increase that would occur 
until the unemployment rates gets back down to 5.5 percent, which is 
what the President and White House said in 2009 would be the 
unemployment rate by now without the stimulus. It is hard to imagine 
that after spending $1 trillion that was borrowed from our children and 
grandchildren to ``stimulate the economy'' and still having an 
unemployment rate that hovers around 8 percent, they would be talking 
about yet more taxes when we know that raising taxes does nothing but 
hurt the economy and hurt job growth.
  If the real goal is to get deficits and debt under control--my 
colleague from Alabama shares my view--the best way to do that is to 
expand the economy. We need to have people working again, investing, 
and paying taxes. We don't need less revenue, we need more revenue in 
order to have a growing economy. That is what we should have before us. 
This budget does the opposite. It adds $7.3 trillion to the Federal 
debt and raises $1.5 trillion in new taxes on top of the $1.7 trillion 
tax increases we have already seen in the last 4 years under this 
administration. This is a completely wrongheaded approach, which is why 
it is not just the Republicans in this Chamber who are saying that, it 
is the so-called independent folks out there in the media who say it on 
their editorial pages. They are calling it what it is. It is a charade.
  There is nothing about this exercise we are going through here on the 
Senate floor this week that will solve the Nation's fiscal problems or 
get people back to work or get this economy growing again. I say that 
in terms of a budget. The budget is supposed to confront harsh 
realities, and it is supposed to set a vision and blueprint and pathway 
for the future.
  If this is their pathway--ignoring the problems and sweeping them 
under the carpet--as far as the long-term structural challenges we face 
with regard to Social Security and Medicare, this does nothing to 
protect those programs. It does nothing. There is no reform in here. 
There is not anything in here that prolongs the programs that people 
rely on today that are headed toward bankruptcy. At the end of this 
decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office, that is going to 
represent 91 percent of all Federal spending. Think about that--91 
percent of all Federal spending will be composed of mandatory programs. 
Only 9 percent of the entire budget will be left over to pay interest 
on the debt, national security, and all the other discretionary things 
the government funds.
  This budget does nothing to address the long-term structural fiscal 
imbalances that face this country. Yet it relies on the same old tried-
and-failed policy: Well, let's just raise taxes a little more. It will 
be a tax increase on the rich because Lord knows we are the defenders 
of the middle class.
  Let me tell the middle class in this country, they cannot raise taxes 
enough on the rich to do all the things they want to do in the form of 
growing government and increasing spending. This is going to hit and 
penetrate middle-income Americans. Middle-class

[[Page 4530]]

families are going to get hit with higher taxes because the appetite to 
spend on the other side is endless. It just goes on and on and on, and 
we are not doing anything to address that.
  We have a spending problem in this country, not a revenue problem or 
a tax problem. It isn't that we spend too little or that we tax too 
little, it is that we spend too much, and that is what we need to 
address in this budget. That is where this budget falls terribly short.
  It is an incredible disappointment to finally--after 4 years--have a 
budget on the floor of the Senate that is inadequate to the future of 
America and relies on the same old failed policy that raises taxes and 
hurts economic growth and hurts job creation.
  We are still hovering at 8 percent unemployment. In the last 4 years, 
we have added $6 trillion to the Federal debt. We have a sluggish 
economy that is growing at 1.5 to 2 percent, and for the 4-year average 
it has been less than 4 percent. The 60-year historical average is 3.3 
percent economic growth. If we got back to the normal economic growth 
pattern average over the last 60 years, these fiscal challenges we face 
would be so much smaller by comparison simply because a growing economy 
helps address all of these problems we are talking about today. 
Unfortunately, the budget we have before us doesn't focus on growing 
the economy; rather, it focuses on growing the government, and that is 
where it falls so miserably short.
  It is really unfortunate that is the vote we are going to have today. 
Many of the amendments we are going to vote on are an attempt to 
improve it. I hope that the Ayotte amendment will pass and that the tax 
increases included in this budget--that the point of order will be 
approved and will deny any tax increase until we get the unemployment 
rate back down to 5.5 percent. That is where it should be. If we have a 
growing economy, it would be closer to that number.
  I support the good efforts of my colleague from Alabama. He has been 
here on the floor for many, many hours over the last couple of days 
doing yeoman's work by pointing out the shortcomings in this budget 
that we are considering before the Senate. The Senator from Alabama has 
laid out a very different vision for how we can solve these problems.
  It is really ironic. I am sure this is-- The ACTING PRESIDENT pro 
tempore. The minority time has expired.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I yield back our time so our colleagues 
have an opportunity to use the term ``balanced'' a few more times 
before this debate concludes.
  I yield the floor.


                           Children's Budget

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask to be recognized to engage in a 
colloquy with my good friend from Washington, the chairman of the 
Budget Committee, Senator Murray.
  I want to commend the chairman's tireless efforts on this budget 
resolution. She has done the yeomen's work in crafting a document that 
reflects the values of our caucus in a balanced and pragmatic way. This 
stands in sharp contrast to the polarizing and ideologically driven 
budget our friends in the House passed earlier this week. As you know I 
have introduced legislation in the last three Congresses to create what 
I call the ``children's budget.'' This bill would require that the 
executive branch agencies include in their annual budget request to 
Congress a detailed analysis on children's programs. This analysis 
would include a breakdown of the appropriations, spending levels, and 
obligational authority and outlays for each program specifically 
targeted towards children or that serve children as a major component 
of their mission. Importantly, this would include an analysis not only 
of the fiscal year for which the budget request is being made, but also 
the previous and current fiscal years, to provide the Budget Committees 
and the Appropriations Committees with a comprehensive look at how 
funding is affecting the youngest Americans.
  I have filed an amendment to this concurrent resolution that seeks to 
address this very issue by encouraging the Appropriations Committees to 
request the analysis of children's programs contingent on the agencies' 
funding. However, I understand through conversations with the Senate 
Parliamentarian and others that indicate such an amendment might not 
comport with the strict requirements and procedures of a budget 
resolution. Is this the chairman's understanding as well?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I want to thank my friend from New Jersey on his 
previous work to highlight how our budget impacts children and on his 
efforts to do so again today. I agree with him that it is important 
that we have a full accounting of how the Federal Government serves 
children throughout our Nation. However, my friend is correct, and due 
to the strict procedural guidelines of the budget resolution an 
amendment that is primarily focused on executive branch agencies falls 
outside the scope of a concurrent resolution such as the one we are 
debating today. However, I want to assure my friend that I will work 
closely with him to find a path forward on the children's budget and 
achieve our shared goal of ensuring that the government is doing its 
best to efficiently and effectively serve our Nation's children.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise today to seek support for an 
amendment to the budget resolution that would discourage aerial 
surveillance of farms by the Environmental Protection Agency.
  Last year, we learned that EPA had been conducting aerial flyovers of 
livestock operations in Nebraska, Iowa, and other states. Needless to 
say, farmers and ranchers were not excited about EPA flying over their 
operations and taking pictures of their farms and homes, which are 
often the same thing. I tried to get straight answers from EPA about 
what they were doing, but they were never willing to be forthcoming 
about this program.
  In an age when satellite imagery allows us to see the cars parked in 
our driveways, one might be tempted to ask, what's the big deal? Well, 
the problem is EPA's recent track record on agriculture and what they 
may do with this information. In spite of several high profile outreach 
events to farmers, I continually hear about EPA's dismissive attitude 
towards the people who work hard every day to put food on the plates of 
millions of people.
  Some members of this Administration and the media have mocked us farm 
state Senators for ``crying over spilled milk'' and fretting about 
``phantom dust rules.'' But we were not using these fears to whip up 
farmers into an anti-EPA frenzy. Yes these rules were far-fetched, but 
what had farmers justifiably worried was that EPA was actually 
considering them.
  It took months and several votes before EPA backed off on its attempt 
to regulate milk spills like oil spills. It's the same story on farm 
dust. Harvesting crops and driving down country roads is dusty work, 
especially when we have persistent drought like much of the country is 
in now.
  But EPA still took months to decide that it would not regulate dust. 
Internal policy documents at EPA recommended that particulate matter 
standards be revised to include coarse particulate matter, also known 
as dust. We should have had a final answer from EPA right away that 
they would not regulate dust, but it took the threat of legislation to 
force their hand.
  And that's just the low-hanging fruit. I've heard many stories of 
overly aggressive enforcement by EPA where they don't even need new 
regulations. Regulated entities can find themselves slapped with 
multiple fines with a time-consuming appeal process, in spite of their 
best efforts to comply with the numerous regulations we place on them.
  The last EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, said that her biggest 
regret was her poor relationship with rural America. Well, that was 
certainly frustrating to me as well. But she found an odd way of 
expressing that regret. In the waning days of her tenure, she released 
private information on thousands of farms to several environmentalist 
groups.
  It's no secret that environmental groups based in New York, 
Philadelphia, and San Francisco don't always

[[Page 4531]]

get along with farmers and ranchers in states like Nebraska. These 
groups do not regulate pollution. Congress has not told EPA to release 
information to them.
  Their only interest in agriculture is in radically reinventing crop 
and livestock production based on idealistic notions and not on the 
reality of what it takes to feed the world. Why EPA decided it was 
prudent to release farmers' and ranchers' personal information to these 
groups is beyond me.
  Is it really any wonder why farmers and ranchers don't believe EPA 
supports agriculture? They don't trust EPA . . . and they sure don't 
want them doing low-altitude surveillance flights over their private 
property.
  These concerns are bipartisan--last year we voted on an amendment to 
stop this surveillance and it received fifty-six votes from members of 
both parties. Yet, EPA has not been forthcoming about this program and 
has never been willing to answer basic questions about the number of 
flights they conduct.
  In fact, we never received any information from EPA headquarters--
only from a regional office--despite multiple requests. The public 
deserves open and honest information about the agency's use of aerial 
surveillance across the country.
  So, until EPA takes a more common-sense, transparent approach, we 
need to stop the EPA's aerial surveillance of our agricultural 
operations that has raised significant privacy concerns. This amendment 
does that, yet it does not hinder the use of traditional on-site 
inspections to ensure our waterways are clean.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire, Ms. 
Ayotte, has filed Senate amendment No. 161, which reinforces the 
current requirement for the Department of Defense to be fully 
financially auditable by the year 2017. I fully support the amendment 
and have joined as a co-sponsor, as auditability is an important step 
to managing a budget, especially one in the hundreds of billions of 
dollars.
  I wish to clarify, however, that the amendment should not be seen as 
superseding existing requirements for agencies within the Intelligence 
Community, including those in the Department of Defense, to be fully 
auditable by 2016. The Select Committee on Intelligence, which I chair, 
has been pushing the intelligence community for years to improve its 
auditability, and I am pleased to say that recently there has been 
significant progress in this area. We will continue to conduct 
oversight and ensure that agencies have the tools and resources they 
need to be fully auditable by 2016, notwithstanding the 2017 date for 
auditability by the rest of the Defense Department.
  The Intelligence Committee staff has confirmed with Senator Ayotte's 
office that this is the Senator's understanding and intent with the 
amendment as well.
  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I rise in support of amendment No. 136, 
which creates a prohibition on funding for the Medium Extended Air 
Defense System, MEADS.
  This amendment is consistent with the House Appropriations, House 
Armed Services, and Senate Armed Services Committee positions to stop 
wasting taxpayer dollars on this bloated, inefficient program the 
Department of Defense doesn't even intend to buy.
  In February 2010, the Department of Defense stated in a memo, which 
is available online, that the program has ``encountered significant 
schedule and cost overruns since its inception in the 1990s.''
  I want to stress that we have been investing in this system since the 
1990s and it hasn't delivered. Billions and billions of dollars have 
been wasted.
  As far as I can tell, more than two decades later, all we have bought 
with those billions is full page ads in newspapers that Senators and 
staff read asking us to give more money to the program.
  It's time we stopped wasting valuable dollars on programs which do 
nothing for Americans, nothing for the warfighter and nothing to 
promote our national security.
  This is simple really. The amendment places a prohibition on further 
funds for the program.
  So I ask my colleagues, do you want to eliminate wasteful spending or 
not?
  Do you want to support warfighter needs or Pentagon pork?
  Do you really want to keep paying China for our debt because the 
Pentagon won't stop sinking money in a program that has no value to our 
troops when they are facing real threats overseas?
  Working with my colleague, Senator Kelly Ayotte, we made a law in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 prohibiting 
funds from being spent on the program.
  It's imperative we send a message to the Pentagon we won't tolerate 
more requests for fancy pictures in Capitol Hill newspapers. Our 
military needs equipment to help them defeat the enemy and equipment to 
protect them. Not pictures and power point slides two decades later.
  I want to commend Senator Ayotte's efforts on the floor the last 
couple of weeks to stop wasteful spending on this ``missile to 
nowhere''--as she calls it.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the 
amendment.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I want to commend the majority for 
finally allowing us to have this debate. This is the first time since I 
was elected to the Senate that we will have the opportunity to vote on 
a Senate budget resolution. The budget they produced is far from what 
our country needs, but the fact that we are having this debate today is 
a very positive step in the right direction.
  Passing a budget is the basic principle of a government. For too long 
now, Washington has been operating without one. The American people 
don't have this luxury. Arkansans ask me, almost daily, how we can 
spend money we don't have because they can't. They are forced to live 
within their means while Washington isn't. So I am pleased to see we 
are putting an end to this unacceptable trend.
  Unfortunately, this budget plan falls far short of what we need to 
get our fiscal house in order and get our economy back on track.
  At a time when we need to put Americans back to work, the majority 
has offered a budget that makes jobs disappear. At a time when we need 
to cut spending, the majority's proposal increases spending by 62 
percent over the next decade. At a time when we need comprehensive 
reform to ease the tax burden hard-working Americans face, the majority 
raises taxes another $1.5 trillion. And at a time when we need to be 
paying down the national debt, the majority's budget adds another 7.3 
trillion to it.
  I can tell you what the people of Arkansas think about this budget. 
Our State is required to balance its budget. Every year, the 
legislators who serve in Little Rock have to make the difficult 
decisions that come with that obligation. They make it work. Washington 
can too.
  We need to stop looking to the Federal Government to solve all our 
problems. The majority's budget proposal not only perpetuates the myth 
that big government is the answer, but it doubles down on it. It is 
time to empower the American people by passing a budget that is a 
blueprint for economic growth and prosperity, rather than bureaucratic 
growth and massive debt.
  Focusing on a progrowth budget is the only way we will speed up the 
slowest economic recovery since World War II. We aren't going to get 
there by continuing to do the status quo. It hasn't worked.
  I don't say all of this to cast doubt on anyone's intentions. I 
believe everyone in this Chamber is working for what they believe is in 
the best interest of the American people. We all want to save future 
generations from the burden of debt; create an environment where the 
economy can grow; protect our entitlement programs for future 
generations; and create a fair tax system that allows every American to 
keep more of his or her hard-earned money.
  These are all admirable goals. I believe they are goals every one of 
my colleagues would like to accomplish.

[[Page 4532]]

And the good news is that they are achievable.
  If we balance the budget now, we save future generations from the 
burden of debt.
  If we pursue policies that focus on growing the private sector 
economy, we can create rising wages and better jobs.
  If we address the looming crisis with our entitlement programs, we 
can protect Social Security and Medicare for our children and 
grandchildren.
  If we enact comprehensive tax reform, we can ensure that every 
American keeps more of his or her hard-earned money and help small 
businesses grow.
  It all starts with a responsible budget. While I am pleased we are 
going to have a vote on a Senate-created budget, it fails on too many 
levels to warrant passage. I urge my colleagues to reject the 
majority's budget and focus our efforts on one that will help us 
accomplish our mutual goals.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, a federal budget outlines our priorities 
as a Nation. On both sides of the aisle, we should be able to agree: We 
need to be wise about our Federal investments. We should be investing 
in what works--in what gives us the biggest bang for our buck.
  For decades, study after study has shown what parents already know--
that quality early education is foundational for success in school and 
life. Quality early education can help kids enter kindergarten ready to 
learn and avoid falling behind. Later in life, kids with quality early 
learning are more likely to avoid crime or teen pregnancy. They 
graduate high school and college, avoid poverty, earn more income, and 
pay more taxes. That is more revenue for our long-term fiscal picture.
  We want to cut unnecessary public spending? Kids with preschool are 
less likely to need public services--from assistance for needy families 
. . . to prisons.
  For a generation, long-term studies have found that investing $1 in 
quality early learning brings a return on investment of between $2 and 
$17 after a generation. In Hawaii, a study for Good Beginnings Alliance 
found we would get $4.20 for every dollar invested. Nobel prize winning 
economist Jim Heckman did the math over a full lifetime. He estimates 
an average 7 to 10 percent return on investment per year. In the 
private sector, business leaders would do anything for a return like 
that.
  On Wall Street, you can't get a long-term return like that in the 
stock market. So it makes sense that business and financial leaders 
support quality early learning, from the Hawaii Business Roundtable to 
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, to leading CEOs, who know that 
to train tomorrow's workers we must start early.
  Law enforcement officials know that quality early learning helps 
prevent kids from falling behind, dropping out of high school, or 
getting involved in crime. Military generals and admirals have stressed 
the importance of quality early education as a national security issue. 
Today 75 percent of Americans age 17 to 24 are ineligible for military 
service due to poor education, physical unfitness or involvement with 
crime. Quality early learning helps kids get on the right path--before 
they fall behind. Parents know the high cost of childcare is difficult 
to afford. But parents want more than just safety and supervision for 
their children. Parents want their children to be prepared 
academically, socially, and emotionally for success in school and in 
life.
  Teachers and school administrators know firsthand that their students 
who come to kindergarten with quality preschool are more likely to 
succeed. We have special education professionals and advocates for 
students with disabilities. They know quality early learning can 
identify disabilities early and bring intervention to get kids on track 
with their peers. That can save billions of dollars in more expensive 
special education services down the line.
  In our States, Governors from both red States and blue States know 
this is important. In Hawaii we have Governor Abercrombie. In 
Massachussetts we have Deval Patrick. But also in Louisiana, Governor 
Bobby Jindal is pushing for quality early education. In Georgia, 
Governor Nathan Deal is pushing for quality early education. In 
Alabama, Governor Bob Bentley is pushing for quality early education. 
Oklahoma is a bright red State and they have been doing quality early 
education for years.
  In February, President Obama called for new support for quality early 
learning. This is the first time we have ever seen this in a State of 
the Union Address. States are asking their leaders in Congress to act. 
Today's Senate budget has a deficit-neutral reserve fund for early 
childhood education.
  Here is what that means. It means let's find a way to pass 
legislation in this Congress. One of the best investments we can make 
long-term that does NOT hurt our deficit in the next 10 years. Let's 
invest in what works: high-quality pre-K for low-income children; high-
quality childcare for working families; and high-quality home visiting 
programs serving low-income mothers-to-be and low-income families.
  This helps get poor children the health and social services they need 
before it is too late.
  Patty Murray has been working to strengthen quality early education 
for a long time. She was a mom in tennis shoes. She was a preschool 
teacher. In the 1980s, she organized 13,000 parents to save a 
Washington State preschool program. I thank Patty for her work on this 
issue in the budget. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
work with us on early childhood education in this budget and in this 
Congress. It is one of the best things we can do for our long-term 
economic health and for our children.


                           amendment no. 430

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, for years many of the largest U.S. 
multinational corporations have been exploiting offshore tax haven 
loopholes in the U.S. Tax Code to avoid paying billions in U.S. 
corporate income tax.
  According to a recent Bloomberg report analyzing publicly available 
U.S. corporate financial data, ``Eighty-three U.S. companies have 
stockpiled $1.43 trillion in untaxed profits in foreign countries.'' 
According to the same report, ``THE six biggest U.S. drug-makers 
avoided paying $7.05 billion in U.S. taxes last year by shifting their 
profits overseas,'' nearly doubling ``the amount they saved using the 
same strategy 10 years earlier.''
  It is time for Congress to close the special interest loopholes that 
allow sophisticated multinational corporations to defer U.S. income tax 
through various foreign tax sheltering techniques and offshore tax 
havens. Senator Levin's amendment No. 430 supports legislation to end 
the abuse of offshore tax shelters. I am cosponsoring this amendment to 
begin the process of closing the egregious loopholes.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I support budgets that make tough but 
necessary spending reductions, save our safety net programs, and 
preserve our commitment to protecting Americans and our interests at 
home and abroad.
  Facing our current debt disaster, there should be no sacred cows in 
the Federal budget. If there is waste, it should be eliminated. If 
government dependency is depressing individual initiative, we must 
reform those programs. Where important and valid programs are destined 
for bankruptcy, we must save them.
  Senator Paul deserves lots of praise for taking our debt problem 
seriously and coming up with a plan to solve it. While there are many 
objectives I support in his budget--including the repeal of ObamaCare 
and Dodd-Frank, allowing the Keystone Pipeline to move forward, and 
bringing our regulations under control through the REINS Act--I could 
not support it tonight.
  One of the most solemn promises I made to Floridians was to work to 
save Social Security without implementing personal accounts, which 
would actually make it harder to get the programs finances in order. 
This budget plan calls for Social Security personal accounts, something 
I do not support.
  On national security issues, we also can't walk away from our 
commitments abroad, which this budget would

[[Page 4533]]

do by drastically reducing the size and scope of the U.S. military by 
ending agreements with foreign partners, closing many overseas 
installations, and bringing troops home from Europe, Asia, and the 
Middle East. Military reductions would also result from a policy of 
attrition, a concerning factor because it means we would not be not be 
replacing the officer corps that leads our brave men and women.
  Whereas the current fiscal year 13 budget for the Defense Department 
is $614 billion, this budget would be $546 billion, with $554 billion 
in fiscal year 14--figures that would further strain readiness and 
impair force projection.
  Especially during this dangerous time when our enemies would be 
emboldened to see us abandon our allies around the world, I cannot 
support a budget that would make the world less safe place because the 
U.S. defense capabilities and our ability to influence events around 
the world are diminished.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, the Senate will vote this evening on an 
amendment offered by Senator Durbin to establish a deficit-neutral 
reserve fund supporting legislation that would allow States to enforce 
State and local use sales tax laws. I will vote in support of this 
amendment because I believe it is important to levy sales taxes fairly 
and consistently and because States, especially those currently facing 
budgetary challenges, need to have the tools necessary to collect 
revenues that are lawfully due. With that said, my support for this 
amendment should not be mistaken as support for any specific 
legislative proposal, including the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013, 
S. 336. I look forward to working with Senators Durbin and Enzi, the 
leaders of this effort, in the months ahead to craft a legislative 
proposal that meets these goals without unduly burdening small 
businesses or States, such as New York, that already have a system for 
collecting sales taxes from online retailers.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as we consider the budget resolution, 
laying out a blueprint for how we invest in our Nation's priorities, I 
urge my colleagues to support my amendment creating a deficit-neutral 
reserve fund to allow for the growth of the National Institutes of 
Health, NIH.
  We all have benefited from medical innovations and cures supported by 
the NIH. If you have ever faced the diagnosis of an illness in your 
family and turned to the doctor to ask: ``Is there a cure? Is there a 
treatment?'' then you understand the importance of NIH research for 
your family. Great medical care is only as good as the science behind 
it. Drugs and devices work only as well as our understanding of the 
medical condition we are treating. NIH support has established the U.S. 
as a global leader in medical innovations that save lives, and we are 
on the verge of so many life-changing discoveries.
  We all remember the 1980s as the AIDS epidemic gripped our country 
and the world with a disease that was at that time a death sentence. 
But now thanks to drugs created with NIH support, people with HIV can 
live a long, productive life into old age. Ironically, the same week 
that sequestration took effect, a groundbreaking medical discovery 
supported by NIH was made in AIDS research. A 2-year old baby in 
Mississippi born with HIV may be the first child to be functionally 
cured of the disease after receiving a cocktail of drugs. This study 
was supported by the NIH, and NIH played a key role in the development 
of the drugs used to treat the toddler.
  Our country is rich with promising research just like this and rich 
with bright minds, curious scientists, and innovative labs engaged in 
work that will lead to a cure for AIDS and treatments for diseases like 
cancer and Alzheimer's. But cuts to NIH could curb the promise of these 
medical discoveries.
  The medical advancements for which we owe our thanks to NIH are many. 
Thanks to NIH-supported research, the likelihood that a child with 
leukemia will survive for 5 years is now 90 percent. And 152 new FDA-
approved drugs and vaccines have been discovered with NIH support over 
the last 40 years. Just 2 weeks ago, I talked with a researcher at the 
University of Illinois Chicago who credited NIH-supported research that 
created a blockbuster new drug to treat HIV.
  NIH-led research developed beta blockers, a commonly used drug to 
treat high blood pressure. And thanks to these drugs, fewer people are 
hospitalized for cardiovascular disease, saving lives and also saving 
costs to Medicare and the Federal Government of $6,000 per patient. 
Investments from NIH in the Human Genome Project opened the door to 
countless medical discoveries and cures and generated $796 billion in 
economic output--a return on investment of $141 for every $1. A 
promising NIH-supported project at the University of Pittsburg School 
of Medicine is working to allow people with paralysis to move a 
mechanical arm with their minds. Imagine how this innovation could 
improve the lives of people paralyzed from a stroke and servicemembers 
with spinal injuries.
  I would like to share the experience of Stevie Conti, a 25-year-old 
woman from Deerfield, IL, who has cystic fibrosis, a rare disease that 
impacts about 30,000 people in the U.S. Stevie loves cooking and 
hanging out with friends. Her twin sister says she is the last to 
complain about anything, including her health. Thanks to investments 
from the NIH, tremendous scientific breakthroughs in genetic mapping 
and drugs are improving the lives of people with cystic fibrosis. A 
little over a year ago, FDA approved a groundbreaking new drug, called 
Kalydeco, which is the first drug to treat the genetic cause of cystic 
fibrosis in some people.
  Since Stevie started taking Kalydeco her health has improved by leaps 
and bounds, and she is able to do simple things that many of us take 
for granted. She has gained 10 pounds and can run a mile without 
coughing or feeling short of breath. Stevie has landed her dream job 
and is able to work 40 hours a week without feeling tired and still has 
enough energy to hang out with friends after work. Stevie says this 
drug has changed her life. NIH-supported research and scientists are 
helping people, like Stevie, live healthier, more productive lives. 
Right now, when so much good research is showing us the way forward, we 
should be doubling down on biomedical research and infrastructure.
  Due to several years of flat funding and cuts, the current NIH budget 
is insufficient to fund all of the critical research that needs to be 
done. Due to cuts to NIH funding and the failure to keep up with rising 
research costs, the number of research grants funded by NIH has 
declined every year since 2004. In 2012, NIH funded 3,100 fewer grants 
than in 2004. Cutting back on biomedical research is a shortsighted act 
that undermines everything we are trying to do for this country. 
Medical research saves lives, keeps America's place as a leader in 
science and medicine, and generates economic growth. Every State and 
the District of Columbia receive NIH funding. These awards go to 
universities, businesses, and research centers--engines of growth for 
local economies.
  Not only is NIH dealing with years of insufficient funding, on March 
1 sequestration went into effect imposing mindless, across-the-board 
cuts for critical, federally supported programs like defense, 
education, aviation safety, and scientific research. This is a 
manufactured crisis that never should have happened. We need to reduce 
our deficit in a thoughtful and sensitive way, but sequestration is a 
hatchet approach that cuts from vital programs that protect our Nation 
and economic growth. A $1.6 billion cut to the NIH, due to 
sequestration, will cause 20,000 jobs to be lost. A cut of this 
magnitude will have a ripple effect that will hurt every State in our 
Union.
  Last year, Illinois received $746 million in NIH funding. 
Sequestration would cause Illinois to lose $38 million. That translates 
to 700 fewer jobs, less innovation, and a slowdown of economic growth 
in my State. Our country is just starting to recover from a recession. 
We cannot afford a mindless cut that will lay off hard-working people 
and stall economic growth.
  Every $1 in NIH funding stimulates $2.21 in business activity that 
develops

[[Page 4534]]

around research, such as biotech companies that provide supplies, food 
services and restaurants, building construction, and hiring support 
staff. As research projects slow and then stop, the companies that 
provide equipment and supplies and the construction projects to expand 
research facilities also slow and then stop. Some U.S.-based companies 
that provide lab supplies to researchers expect that a cut to NIH will 
cause a drop in sales and slow down production lines forcing companies 
to close sites and lay off workers.
  Dr. Francis Collins, the Director of the NIH, says there is no 
question that sequestration will slow the development of an influenza 
vaccine and our progress with cancer research.
  Eli Zerhouni, the head of NIH under President George W. Bush, says:

       We are going to maim our innovation capabilities if you do 
     these abrupt deep cuts at NIH. It will impact science for 
     generations to come.

  Insufficient funding and cuts to NIH will force the agency to not 
award some grants. And it may need to reduce awards that have already 
been announced. Research and clinical trials that have already started 
are less likely to be given funding to continue, so promising projects 
will be terminated, suspended or forced to lay off workers.
  I would like to share the story of Dr. Teresa Woodruff, a researcher 
and professor at Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine. 
Dr. Woodruff is leading one of the first major studies on the impact of 
superfund environmental toxins on reproductive health. Her work could 
help us understand the health risks of certain chemicals and how 
pollutants enter the human body. The Monday after sequestration took 
effect, Dr. Woodruff was delighted to learn that the NIH had awarded 
funding for her research, but disappointed to learn that--due to 
sequestration--the grant was cut by more than half.
  Dr. Woodruff is thankful for the NIH funding, but this cut means she 
will have to drop key parts of her research, like studying the impact 
of toxins on men and children and how pollutants end up in the food we 
eat. Because of the drastic cut in funding, Dr. Woodruff will not hire 
new people and will have fewer training slots to teach the next 
generation of scientists. Dr. Woodruff's experience is being played out 
across the country as promising researchers are forced to stall 
clinical trials and lay off support staff.
  The percent of NIH grants being awarded since the 1960s has dropped 
significantly. Currently, less than one in every five grants to the NIH 
is awarded funding. The primary reason for this decline is insufficient 
funding. Less funding will result in fewer grants being awarded, and 
the group of researchers most impacted by this cut is young 
researchers. Once we add the $1.6 billion cut due to sequestration, we 
risk losing a new generation of scientists in our Nation.
  Less funding means fewer academic grants to educate young scientists. 
And more competition for grants makes it difficult for young scientists 
to win funding and dissuades new scientists from pursuing careers in 
research. When and if NIH funding eventually increases, projects will 
struggle to find and train talented scientists who will make tomorrow's 
discoveries.
  For over a century, NIH-supported scientists have led the way for 
important breakthroughs to improve health and save lives through 
discoveries--discoveries such as development of the MRI, extending the 
life expectancy of people with cystic fibrosis, revolutionizing our 
thinking about cancer, and creating vaccines.
  Two weeks ago, I received a letter from a man named Andrew Young from 
Vernon Hills, IL. His 16-year-old sister Emily has a rare disease 
called Friedreich's Ataxia, a rare disease that makes it hard to 
perform basic motor functions like walk, write, and speak. Most young 
people with FA need to use a cane or wheelchair by their teens. Emily's 
world was turned upside down in 2008 when she was diagnosed with FA, 
but she refuses to let it define her. She wants to go to college and 
practice medicine and hopes for a cure one day.
  Now is not the time to disinvest in NIH and close the door to finding 
cures for people like Emily. Disinvestment in NIH would be a 
shortsighted act that risks forfeiting the U.S.'s position as a leader 
in biomedical research and reaping the economic and biomedical rewards 
of scientific research. These cuts don't make sense for--patients, 
local economies, or our Nation.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to ensure our 
country creates and benefits from the life-changing medical discoveries 
supported by the National Institutes of Health.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of 
organizations that support my amendment.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

        Organization That Support the Durbin-Moran NIH Amendment

       Research!America
       American Lung Association
       American Heart Association
       United for Medical Research
       FASEB (Federation of American Societies for Experimental 
     Biology)
       American Society of Transplantation (AST)
       The Endocrine Society
       American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, Inc.
       Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC)
       American Association for Cancer Research
       Association of Minority Health Professions Schools
       Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America
       Digestive Disease National Coalition
       Dystonia Medical Research Foundation
       GBS/CIDP Foundation International
       International Foundation for Functional Gastrointestinal 
     Disorders
       Interstitial Cystitis Association
       Joint Advocacy Coalition
       National Alopecia Areata Foundation
       National Kidney Foundation
       National Marfan Foundation
       NephCure Foundation
       Pulmonary Hypertension Association
       Scleroderma Foundation
       Sleep Research Society
       US Hereditary Angioedema Association.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority has 17 minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New 
Hampshire and 7 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, the chairman of the Budget Committee has 
done an excellent job. While I appreciate the comments of my colleague 
from South Dakota, I actually think that in order to deal with the 
budget challenges facing the country, we have to look at both revenues 
and spending.
  One of the areas of spending that have been the most problematic has 
been health care costs. It has been one of the fastest growing costs 
for the Federal Government, and what we have to do is look at how we 
can lower the health care costs.
  The amendment I proposed that we are going to vote on this morning, 
amendment No. 438, is one that actually reduces health care costs.
  In the 3 years since the Affordable Care Act was passed, women's 
access to affordable health care has improved. Women now have access to 
a wide range of preventive services, such as well-women appointments, 
screenings for cancer, diabetes, HIV, and counseling for domestic 
violence. All women now have access to contraceptive coverage for free 
through their insurance plans. Ninety-nine percent of women report that 
they have used birth control at some point in their lives, and access 
to birth control is directly linked to the decline in maternal and 
infant mortality. I think that is a really important message we need to 
get across to people. There is a direct connection between access to 
birth control and maternal and infant mortality. Access to birth 
control can also reduce the risk of ovarian cancer. It is linked to 
overall good health outcomes.
  Sadly, the United States has one of the highest rates of unintended 
pregnancies in the industrialized world, and preventing unintended 
pregnancies just makes fiscal sense. Studies have found that medical 
services to women who

[[Page 4535]]

experience unintended pregnancies and to infants who are born as a 
result of such pregnancies can cost taxpayers up to $12 billion a year.
  My State of New Hampshire has one of the lowest teen birth rates in 
the country. As Governor, I was proud to sign a law that required 
health care plans to cover contraception. It was a law that passed with 
overwhelming bipartisan support in our legislature. The fact is that 
accessible family planning matters, and it can make a difference.
  Despite the research which shows that investments in women's health 
make sense, we continue to see efforts to deprive women from receiving 
the most basic of care.
  The amendment I am going to be offering this morning will protect 
women's access to primary and preventive health care, to family 
planning, and to birth control. At the most basic level, this amendment 
ensures that a woman's family planning decisions are ones she makes 
with her doctor and her family, and that they are not dictated by 
government or by her employer.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Thank you. So I hope my colleagues will support the 
amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senator from Minnesota has requested 
10 minutes, and I yield to him 10 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the budget we are 
proposing. It has three basic guiding principles: First, we must 
protect our fragile economic recovery by creating jobs and investing in 
economic growth.
  I remember when we did this during the Clinton administration. 
President Clinton proposed as a deficit reduction package raising 
income taxes on those who earned above $250,000 at 39.6 percent. Every 
Republican voted against it, and many of them went on record saying it 
was going to cause a recession. Some Members of this body voted against 
it saying it was going to cause a recession and it would be Clinton's 
recession. So 22.7 million jobs later there was no deficit. We had a 
surplus.
  This idea we hear from the other side that every time we raise taxes 
we hurt the economy just defies history. All we have to do is look at 
recent history, and especially now, at a time when there is a growing 
disparity in income in our country.
  What we are trying to do is to promote growth. We promote growth by 
investing in that which creates growth. We know what they are. One is 
education. We are going to cut Pell grants? When my wife was 18 months 
old her father died in a car accident. He was a decorated World War II 
vet, leaving her mom widowed at age 29, with 5 kids, four girls and a 
boy. The boy, my brother-in-law, went into the Coast Guard and he did 
20 years in the Coast Guard and he still works for the Coast Guard. He 
is an electrical engineer in the Coast Guard. He is the second most 
important man in my son's life. My son was able to get a master's 
degree in mechanical engineering from MIT.
  My three sisters-in-law and Franni went to college on Pell grants and 
scholarships. At that time the full Pell grant paid for 85 percent of a 
public college education. Now it pays for less than 35 percent. The 
Presiding Officer knows, because my mother-in-law ended up going to the 
University of Maine. But the Presiding Officer knows that today, kids 
who go to the University of Maine have debt. All of us know our kids, 
our students have debt. In Minnesota the average debt is $29,000.
  My wife's family lived on Social Security survivor benefits. My 
mother-in-law went to college on the GI bill. She got a loan on the GI 
bill. She became a teacher, teaching title I kids--because of Social 
Security, because of the GI bill. My wife's family was able to just 
barely get by. They barely made it. Sometimes there wasn't enough food 
on the table. Sometimes they turned the phone off, but they made it.
  We have people now--they all made it into the middle class. The 
ladder was there. We are trying to preserve that. They tell us to pull 
ourselves up by our boot straps in this country. Sometimes people just 
need the boots first. The government gave my wife's family the boots, 
and they are all productive members of our society because of programs.
  We had a hearing in the HELP Committee, and we had a witness whom the 
Republicans called, and he testified about what creates the middle 
class. They called a witness who was from the American Enterprise 
Institute. They are good people at the American Enterprise Institute. 
The witness's testimony ended with the idea that government can create 
jobs is a myth. So when it got to my turn to question him, I said: Have 
you heard of the Erie Canal? He had. The Erie Canal opened the Midwest 
to Europe. It made shipping our timber and our agricultural goods 97 
percent more efficient. I asked him if he had heard of the Interstate 
Highway System. He had. I asked him if he understood that we were on C-
SPAN, as we are right now, the Cable Satellite Public Affairs Network. 
I asked him if he knew who put up the first satellites; it was the 
Defense Department.
  I noted that he had gone to the University of California at San 
Diego. I asked him if any of his professors had helped him at all. He 
said they had. He got his doctorate at UCLA. I asked him if he had 
heard of the Internet. He had.
  By the end of my questioning, he said: To say that the government 
can't create jobs would be absurd. It started with the idea that 
government can create jobs is a myth, and he ended his testimony with 
saying: To say the government can't create jobs would be absurd. There 
was a 180-degree difference except he added absurdity. So he injected 
it. That is what I used to do. I used to identify absurdity.
  There is absurd stuff going on and being said here. We are hearing 
things cited that have been disproved so many times.
  The budget we are proposing today is based on three guiding 
principles. First, we must protect our fragile economic recovery by 
creating jobs and investing in economic growth. Second, we must tackle 
our deficits in a responsible way. And finally, we need to honor the 
promises we have made to our seniors, our veterans, and our middle 
class families. This budget does all of those things--and in doing so, 
it reflects our values and our priorities. In contrast, the budget 
being debated in the House provides massive tax breaks for the wealthy 
and big corporations, while slashing critical investments that will 
endanger our economic recovery.
  Everyone agrees we shouldn't saddle our children and grandchildren 
with insurmountable debt--addressing our debt is a responsibility we 
take very seriously. But at the same time, if we fail to make the 
necessary investments in economic growth, public health improvements, 
quality education, rural development, and clean energy, our children 
and grandchildren will inherit an equally unacceptable burden.
  Drastic cuts to infrastructure, innovation, and education are penny 
wise and pound foolish. Even if we save a little on paper upfront, the 
realistic long-term effects are costly and devastating. That is why our 
budget includes a $100 billion infrastructure recovery plan that will 
get workers back on the job, repairing our crumbling schools and 
bridges, and building up our technology infrastructure, so schools and 
small businesses, even in rural Minnesota, can stay competitive.
  It also lays the groundwork to pass a comprehensive 5-year Farm Bill 
that will provide certainty and support for Minnesota's farmers. This 
budget plan protects Head Start, early childhood education, and Pell 
grants--which make a quality education possible for all students, 
regardless of background, and will prepare our children for the 21st 
century workforce.
  This budget demonstrates our commitment to responsible deficit 
reduction. Since the Simpson-Bowles proposal, Congress has reduced the 
deficit by $2.4 trillion--$1.8 trillion coming from spending cuts, and 
$600 billion from allowing tax rates for the wealthiest to return to 
prior levels. This budget builds on that deficit reduction with an 
additional $1.85 trillion. That is a total of $4.25 trillion in

[[Page 4536]]

deficit reduction--which exceeds the goal set out in Simpson-Bowles.
  This budget shares other principles of Simpson-Bowles--that deficit 
reduction should be achieved through a mix of spending cuts and new 
revenues, and that deficit reduction should not be done on the backs of 
the most vulnerable.
  At one point in time, there was enthusiasm among some of my Senate 
colleagues from the other side of the aisle for Simpson-Bowles. One 
such Senator said, ``Say yes to Simpson-Bowles . . . I'm willing to say 
yes to Simpson-Bowles.'' Another said, ``Everybody knows what the 
solution is, and that's Simpson-Bowles . . . I mean, everybody knows 
that that's the template for what we need to do.'' Another called the 
plan ``a good starting point and should be seriously considered by 
Congress.'' Our budget exceeds the deficit reduction goal in Simpson-
Bowles, and follows the same general principles--yet my colleagues on 
the other side have not yet come around to supporting it.
  Finally, in addition to growing our economy and responsibly 
addressing the deficit, our budget honors the promises we have made to 
our seniors, our veterans, and our most vulnerable. This is in sharp 
contrast to the budget being considered in the House.
  My colleagues and I pay into Medicare every month, and so we are 
entitled to Medicare benefits when we reach age 65. The fact that we 
are entitled to these benefits is not a bad thing. In fact, it is a 
very important thing for millions of American seniors. In 1965, we 
created Medicare and Medicaid so seniors could count on having access 
to medical care in their retirement. As a nation, we promised our 
parents and grandparents they could count on Medicare and Medicaid as a 
safety net in their golden years. And the Senate Democratic budget 
protects that safety net.
  However, the House Republican budget would undermine the very 
foundation of the promise, and end Medicare as we know it. Their budget 
would replace Medicare's guarantee of health coverage with a voucher, 
and would raise the Medicare eligibility age. In my home State of 
Minnesota, this proposal would shift costs to more than 800,000 seniors 
when they can least afford to bear that burden. It would end the 
guarantee of health coverage that Medicare has made for decades. In 
fact, it would end Medicare as we know it.
  The House Republican budget would also turn Medicaid into a block 
grant. Now, a lot of people think Medicare will provide long-term care 
services for seniors since Medicare is thought of as the health care 
program for seniors. But it is actually Medicaid that provides those 
long-term services and supports. Medicare does not cover those.
  So when the House Republicans talk about turning Medicaid into a 
block grant, what they are actually talking about is ending the 
guarantee that seniors can get the care they need when they need it 
most. In my home State of Minnesota, that means the nearly 100,000 
seniors who depend on Medicaid would no longer be able to count on 
getting the care they need. Our Senate budget protects the Medicaid 
program so seniors can access that care when they need it.
  I also want to talk for a moment about the SNAP program, or food 
stamps. The House Republican budget would cut the SNAP program by $135 
billion. This could mean that as many as 13 million people would be cut 
from the program. More than a quarter of these people would be low-
income seniors and people with disabilities. That is as many as 3 
million seniors who would no longer have the assistance they need to 
buy food. Fortunately, the Senate budget protects the SNAP program so 
that seniors can continue to buy food.
  This budget also keeps our Nation's promise to our veterans. We just 
marked the 10-year anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq War. We 
have responsibly brought that war to an end. We remain in Afghanistan, 
where we have been for well over a decade, though we are also bringing 
our participation in that war to a responsible end. Well over 2 million 
Americans have deployed during those wars as part of our all-volunteer 
force.
  The budget funds veterans programs so that veterans can get the 
education they need, the jobs they are seeking, the homes every 
American should be able to depend on, and access to the health care 
they have earned and deserve.
  I am proud of our budget, and of the values it reflects. It reflects 
a commitment to the success of future generations, and to the middle 
class. It puts the interests of regular people above those of our most 
profitable corporations. It tackles our budget deficits in a way that 
will promote growth and prosperity.
  I have also filed several amendments that reflect priorities for 
Minnesota--in particular, the expansion of rural broadband, the 
promotion of college affordability, encouraging public-private 
partnerships in workforce training efforts, expanding access to skills 
courses for the unemployed, and promoting clean energy on tribal lands.
  I thank Chairman Murray for her leadership during this process, and 
look forward to carrying out this budget's priorities alongside her in 
the coming years.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from 
Minnesota, as we prepare to go through a series of votes, for reminding 
us that a budget is not just numbers on a piece of paper. It really is 
a statement of our values and what we care about and how we are going 
to invest in our country so we have strong jobs in the future and a 
strong economy. We really base this budget on those principles, and the 
Senator from Minnesota reminded us all of that so well today, and I 
thank him for his statement.
  We are within a minute of beginning the vote, so I would remind my 
colleagues we have a busy day ahead of us. We on our side are very 
proud of the budget we have put forward that focuses on jobs and the 
economy, in this fragile time getting people back to work, getting them 
the resources they need to have a strong future, whether it is 
education or infrastructure or the research and development that 
creates the kind of jobs that the Senator from Minnesota has focused 
on. We on this side do deeply understand the need to manage our debt 
and deficit responsibly. It is why we have put forward a credible 
approach, a balanced approach, that makes sure we are cutting, in many 
programs the Presiding Officer and I care deeply about, but 
understanding this is the time we are in, where we have to relook at 
these programs and manage them effectively, and we have done that in 
our budget. There are many tough choices we have in front of us, but 
the tough choices we have put forward in this budget reflect the 
balance the American people have asked us to make in our budget 
approach.
  I look forward to having it passed sometime, I am sure, in the wee 
hours of the morning. This budget moves us toward a place where we can 
work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle and both sides of this 
city to come together in a way that gets us back on a path so we are 
not managing this country from crisis to crisis, but are working 
effectively together to move forward in this country.
  So with that, Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time.


                           Amendment No. 431

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will be 2 minutes equally divided prior to a vote on amendment No. 431, 
offered by the Senator from Maryland, Ms. Mikulski.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Mikulski, the first 
amendment she has offered is a very important one.
  We all know pay discrimination in the workplace is very real. We know 
women are nearly half of our workforce, but they still only earn about 
77 percent of what men earn, and women of color are much worse off. 
African-American women make 70 cents on the dollar. Hispanic women make 
only 60 cents on the dollar. We want to make sure all of our families 
are strong and stable in the future, and pay discrimination is 
something that is holding

[[Page 4537]]

women and families and communities back.
  So a ``no'' vote on this means you are actually OK with women earning 
less pay than men--women not being able to contribute to their families 
in a strong way so their children can be taken care of and they can pay 
their mortgage or their rent and put food on the table.
  A ``yes'' vote on this amendment means you acknowledge this as a 
problem and agree that women must receive equal pay for equal work.
  I want to thank the Senator from Maryland for her long-time advocacy 
on behalf of women in many ways, but particularly on making sure they 
have equal pay.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we would urge our colleagues to support 
the Mikulski amendment. It sets the goal of equal pay for equal work. 
Fortunately, it does not specify any coercive method by government to 
compel that outcome. We think it is a worthwhile aspiration. As a 
father of two daughters, I certainly hope their work is rewarded by 
equal pay to that of their counterparts who are young men.
  I urge all of our colleagues to support the Mikulski amendment, with 
that understanding that we are talking about the marketplace setting 
that outcome rather than coercive policies from the government.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a request for the yeas and 
nays?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would suggest we take this amendment 
by voice vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, on our side I believe we are happy to 
have a voice vote on this amendment. And I urge a strong yes. It sets a 
great tone, by the way, for the rest of the day.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 431) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 158

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There will now be 2 minutes equally 
divided on the Ayotte amendment.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Ayotte 
amendment No. 158. We should not be increasing taxes now at the expense 
of jobs, so my amendment would simply bring a budget point of order to 
prohibit tax increases while unemployment is above 5.5 percent.
  The President said if we passed his stimulus package--his team said 
we would be at 5.1-percent unemployment now. I have heard from so many 
businesses, with the $1.7 trillion in tax increases that have already 
been brought by the President and the Democrats here, jobs are hurting. 
Now is not the time to raise taxes. Our small businesses are being 
killed by this.
  Mr. President, 23 million Americans are out of work. So many are 
struggling, with the unemployment rate at over 7 percent. That is why I 
have offered this amendment.
  I urge my colleagues, let's not increase taxes at the expense of 
jobs. So please support my amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as I have said many times, this budget 
asks the wealthiest Americans and our biggest corporations to pay just 
a little bit more, both to get our fiscal house in order and to make 
critical investments that will help drive broad-based economic growth.
  Economists across the political spectrum will tell you that raising 
revenues from those who can afford it most will not hurt our economy. 
In fact, our experience during the 1990s proves that fact. In fact, 
raising revenues by closing loopholes and cutting inefficient spending 
in the Tax Code for the wealthiest Americans, as our budget proposes, 
actually stands to boost the economy by removing tax breaks that 
distort the allocation of capital.
  This amendment that is being offered would effectively end the 
privileged status of a balanced and fair budget plan, such as this one, 
that calls on the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share in order 
to address our deficits and get our economy going again.
  I strongly encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 50 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--54

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The amendment (No. 158) was rejected.


                           Amendment No. 202

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will be 2 minutes equally divided prior to a vote on Amendment No. 202, 
offered by the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cruz.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, tomorrow is the 3-year anniversary of the 
passage of ObamaCare. ObamaCare is hurting. It is hurting seniors, it 
is hurting Hispanics, it is hurting African Americans, it is hurting 
single moms, and it is hurting the economy. It should be repealed.
  Yesterday over 70 Members of this body voted to remove one of the 
most pernicious taxes in ObamaCare, the tax on medical device 
providers. I happily voted for the amendment, but I would point out 
this is a wealthy industry which can afford to hire lobbyists.
  We should be responsive not only to wealthy corporate lobbyists but 
to the people and small businesses that are being hurt by ObamaCare and 
to the workers who are being hurt by ObamaCare. We should be responsive 
to the American people. For that reason, this amendment would create a 
deficit-neutral reserve fund to defund ObamaCare and repeal ObamaCare.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield to the Senator from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this will be the 36th time we have voted 
to repeal the Affordable Care Act. I know the Senators on the other 
side want to revote to repeal it. That is fine. I wish to warn you, due 
to the way this amendment is drafted, it also repeals what we put in 
that bill on education; to wit, we put in money to increase Pell 
grants. We put in money to increase funding for Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities. We put in money also to help the community 
colleges, $2 billion. We also included the more generous income-based 
repayment system to ensure people don't

[[Page 4538]]

need to pay more than 10 percent of their discretionary income to pay 
back their student loans. All of that is wiped out in the Senator's 
amendment.
  Again, maybe it is just a drafting error. But I think Senators should 
know you are not just voting to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. 
That is fine if you want to do that. I don't think Senators on the 
other side of the aisle who are here wish to vote to decrease Pell 
grants and to decrease funding for universities.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. CRUZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 51 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--54

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The amendment (No. 202) was rejected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 439

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes equally divided prior to a vote on amendment No. 439 offered by 
the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, we 
are going to have a lot of amendments, so if we have a lot of floor 
discussion, this is only going to delay it. I would encourage Senators 
throughout the day to please take their conversations off the floor 
after the votes so Senators who are speaking on the amendments on both 
sides of the aisle have the consideration of being heard.
  I will take my 1 minute on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senate budget already includes a 
deficit-neutral reserve fund for tax relief. This amendment would make 
that relief for low- and middle-income Americans explicit, but it would 
do it in a way that preserves the health care benefits in the 
Affordable Health Care Act.
  Unfortunately, the amendment that follows this one will gut the ACA 
and leave millions of Americans back in a position where they have to 
worry about a preexisting condition or a health illness that could 
bankrupt their household. We have to make sure taxes do not hit low- 
and middle-income families, but we should do it in a responsible way 
that doesn't take away health care for millions of Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Budget 
Committee member Senator Toomey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I am not rising in opposition to this 
amendment because I oppose it. We Republicans don't want to raise taxes 
on low- and middle-income families because we don't want to raise taxes 
on anybody. But the irony of this is that this budget is an exercise in 
raising taxes on middle-income families. It is necessarily the case.
  By the way, that is above and beyond the huge tax increases my 
colleagues imposed when they voted for ObamaCare--$1.2 trillion of tax 
increases, much of which lands squarely on middle-income families.
  The fact is the President showed how he wants to raise taxes on the 
wealthy, and he has a plan that does that. It raises $600 billion. My 
colleagues have reconciliation instructions for $1 trillion. The 
difference is going to inevitably come from the middle class. We don't 
want that to happen.
  I would suggest we will accept this amendment. We could accept it on 
a voice vote. But it doesn't change the central fact that the 
Democratic budget is all about raising taxes on middle-income families.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we can accept it on a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 52 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cowan
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lee
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The amendment (No. 439) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 222

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes equally divided prior to a vote on amendment No. 222 offered by 
the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Crapo.
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, although it has been a couple of years now 
since we passed the health care law, it is becoming evident to all 
Americans that

[[Page 4539]]

there were in fact many new taxes--almost $1 trillion of new taxes--in 
the health care law. And despite the President's firm pledge at that 
time not to raise taxes by even one dime on middle-income Americans, I 
at that time asked the Joint Tax Committee to evaluate the law and tell 
us if there were such taxes in the law.
  The letter I received back from the Joint Tax Committee indicated 
there were at least seven taxes in the health care law that did 
squarely hit the middle class--and not just in a small way. It is at 
least a quarter trillion dollars of new taxes that the middle class 
will pay if we don't fix it. In fact, it is 73 million American 
families that will ultimately pay this new tax in the ObamaCare 
legislation if we don't reform it.
  This is an amendment I brought during the consideration of the health 
care law. It was defeated then by a claim that there were no taxes in 
the bill. We now know there are taxes in the bill, and this is our 
chance, now that these taxes are beginning to be implemented, to remove 
them from the law.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it is ironic that a number of those taxes 
are in the Ryan budget that our colleagues voted for last night. But 
let me say this. The ACA is going to extend health care coverage to 
nearly 30 million people. They are mostly low- and middle-income people 
who don't have access to affordable coverage. The law also fully pays 
for the costs of expanding health insurance coverage and does it 
without increasing taxes on our middle class.
  I believe expanding health care insurance coverage is one of the most 
important things we can do for our country and for our economy. The 
amendment that is being offered would undermine the effort under way to 
bring health insurance to millions of currently uninsured people in a 
fiscally responsible fashion.
  I urge our colleagues to oppose this amendment and I ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 53 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--54

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The amendment (No. 222) was rejected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 438

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes equally divided in the usual form prior to the vote on 
amendment No. 438, offered by the Senator from New Hampshire, Mrs. 
Shaheen.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, amendment No. 438 establishes a deficit-
neutral reserve fund to protect women's access to basic health care, 
including family planning and birth control. It ensures that employers 
cannot deny coverage for contraceptives.
  We have seen that improving access to preventive care, including 
contraception, is good health policy, and as a result it means 
healthier women, healthier children, and healthier families.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, every Senator supports expanding access 
to health care. We may have strong differences on the best way to do 
it, but no one should doubt that commitment. However, we must also 
ensure that we protect deeply held religious beliefs of our citizens.
  In this regard, the Shaheen amendment--and the new health care law--
gets it all wrong. In addition to growing government and slowing the 
economy, the law tramples on the rights of individuals.
  Later this afternoon, Senator Fischer will offer a side-by-side to 
this amendment.
  I ask my colleagues to vote no on the Shaheen amendment.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second. There is a sufficient 
second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 54 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--43

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The amendment (No. 438) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 4540]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we are now in a period of 2 hours of 
debate equally divided. I understand Senators on that side will begin.
  I would like to notify all Senators we are now working through a 
process to get the next amendment set in order so that Members will 
know. We do have 2 hours of debate, but Members should know that we may 
yield back some of that time. So please be ready. I think everybody has 
a lot of amendments they want to have brought up, and the sooner we can 
get to that the sooner we will.
  So, again, we will now move to 2 hours of debate equally divided.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
hours of debate equally divided between the managers or their 
designees.
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the number 
of Budget Committee staff for the minority granted access to the floor 
at one time be increased by two.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to recognize Senator Coburn for 
22 minutes. I also have on our schedule of Members, Senator Collins for 
10 minutes, Senator Cornyn for 10 minutes, Senator Inhofe for 10 
minutes, and Senator Sessions for 8 minutes.
  At this time I yield to Senator Coburn for 22 minutes. First, I would 
note that Senator Coburn is doing something that every Member of this 
body should be inspired by. He is actually working hard every day to 
identify the problems we face with duplication and waste in our 
government. We do far too little of that, and this budget does 
virtually nothing about it. So I would like to thank Senator Coburn for 
being unparalleled in his commitment to financial responsibility, and I 
yield to the Senator 22 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, first of all, I ask unanimous consent to 
use oversized charts. I don't actually like to use oversized charts, 
but I cannot get all the information I need to present on one regular 
chart because I am looking at one subject area.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. First of all, I wish to thank the chairman of the Budget 
Committee for bringing a budget to the floor. It is great that we have 
done it.
  We know the outcome of this budget vote already. The final budget 
vote will not come until sometime in the middle of the night. But in 
that budget we are going to spend $47 trillion. There is a dispute 
between how we look at it and how our colleagues on the other side look 
at it, but there is at least $1 trillion in tax increases.
  The new debt over the next 10 years is $7.3 trillion despite $1 
trillion in tax hikes. The debt that has been added since the last 
budget passed this Senate is $5.5 trillion.
  The spending increase above the projected growth over 10 years is 
$645 billion. The spending increase in this budget next year above 
today's budget level is $162 billion.
  The deficit increase next year relative to the fiscal year 2014 
projection by CBO is a $95 billion increase in our debt--we are not 
going the other way.
  The growth rate in the Federal budget over 10 years is going to be 60 
percent, and in the mandatory programs it is going to be 80 percent, so 
we are going to have the government growing at least 7 percent a year, 
continuing to grow at a rate faster than our economy, at a rate faster 
than personal income.
  The net deficit reduction over that 10 years over what was projected 
may be $270 billion. The deficit reduction achieved through spending 
cuts will be zero in this budget--zero through spending cuts.
  The deficit reduction through elimination of duplication, fraud, and 
waste in this budget is zero.
  The date this budget balances is never.
  I am bringing these charts to the floor because I want the American 
people to know how we are not doing our job. We are going to get a vote 
on a lot of these things, I have told my colleagues. I haven't been 
allowed to offer a lot of these amendments on bills that have come to 
the floor, so we are going to vote on them tonight and into the early 
hours tomorrow morning. The reason it is important for us to vote on 
them is because the American people need to know whether or not we are 
going to act on them. Let me start to go through some of the programs 
and see if it matches any type of common sense that anybody in America 
might have about how we could go about helping American citizens.
  Three years ago we forced the GAO to do a duplication study of the 
whole Federal Government. We are going to get that last report about 
1\1/2\ weeks from now. They will have looked at the whole Federal 
Government. This is just the data based on the first two reports. Let 
me just go through it rather quickly so my colleagues can see.
  We have 15 unmanned aircraft programs, 5 agencies, $37 billion a 
year. Why do we have 15 of them? Does that make sense to anybody?
  We have domestic food programs, 18 different programs, 3 different 
agencies, and we are spending $62 billion.
  We have 21 different homeless programs--21 different homeless 
programs. It is great that it is only one through one agency. Why do we 
have 21 separate programs? Each one of these programs has a bureaucracy 
and office staff and overhead and administration. Why not have one or 
two?
  Transportation services for transportation-disadvantaged persons: 80 
separate, different, distinctly designed programs in 80 different 
agencies. Why not in the transportation agency alone? Why not run it 
out of the department it should be run through?
  Job training and employment, 47 programs for the able-bodied, 9 
different agencies, and it is actually $18.9 billion. We have actually 
done all the oversight on this. In Oklahoma, we have 17 federally-run 
job training programs in a city that has less than 15,000 people and 
has 400 people unemployed, 17 separate offices run by the Federal 
Government.
  Teacher quality, 82 separate teacher training and quality programs, 
not run within the Department of Education but run within the 
Department of Education and nine other agencies. How does that fit? 
When we are in a time when we are trying to make hard decisions to 
protect the future of this country and a fiscal balance, why won't we 
address this? None of this stuff has been addressed. This has been 
known for 2 years. None of it is in the budget. It is not even in the 
House budget.
  Food safety, 30 different programs, 15 different agencies, $1.6 
billion. Do people realize if we buy a cheese pizza at the grocery 
store it is controlled by the Department of Agriculture, but if 
somebody buys a pepperoni pizza at the grocery store it is controlled 
by the FDA? Does that make sense to anybody? Why would we continue to 
be stupid? And we are the ones being stupid because we will not address 
these issues.
  Military and veterans health services, we have four agencies running 
that. I would think we would want the VA to run that, not the VA plus 
three other agencies.
  Economic development, we have 80 programs, 4 different agencies, and 
$6.5 billion a year.
  U.S.-Mexican border region water needs, all right, we have Arizona on 
that border, we have Texas on that border, and we have California on 
that border. We have seven different agencies that control that. Why? 
Why would we do that?
  Financial literacy programs, I would make the point that we are not 
very good in financial literacy within the Federal Government because 
all one has to do is look at our budget. There are 13 different 
agencies, 15 programs, plus the new Financial Consumer Protection Board 
is going to create another one--another one. We are spending $30 
million a year on that.
  Green buildings, 94 different programs, 11 different agencies, 
spending $1 billion a year.
  Housing assistance, 160 different programs, 20 agencies--20 Federal 
Government agencies--spending $170 billion a

[[Page 4541]]

year the overhead that is associated with all of this, the duplication 
that is associated with it, the complications, the paperwork.
  Department of Justice grant programs, 253 of them: They are within 
the Department of Justice, but they are run through 10 other Federal 
agencies, not the Department of Justice.
  Diesel emissions, 14 different programs, 3 different agencies. Why 
three? Why do we have to interact with three different agencies to have 
our diesel emissions controlled, and why are there 14 different 
programs?
  Early learning and child care, 50 programs, 9 agencies, $16 billion.
  Surface transportation, 55 programs, 5 agencies, $43 billion.
  Support for entrepreneurs, 53 programs, 4 different agencies. We have 
small business, but guess what. We have one at Agriculture, we have one 
at Treasury, we have one somewhere else I can't remember; $2.6 billion.
  Science, technology, education and math, we all agree it is 
important. The Pentagon has over 100 programs. The Pentagon itself has 
over 100 programs. Then we have another 105 or so programs spread 
across the rest of the agencies. Thirteen different agencies have a 
science, technology, engineering program. Why is that not within the 
Department of Education?
  As I finish this, I will not go to the next chart just on the basis 
of time.
  I outlined a whole bunch of different programs, and not one of them 
has a metric on it that says we are successful or unsuccessful--not one 
of them. So even the agencies that have these multiple programs, 
running across multiple agencies, have no endpoint to say: Are you 
doing anything?
  What we have discovered on job training is we are real good in job 
training with Federal programs of employing people in job training. We 
are terrible in terms of giving them a life skill that will give them a 
lifetime work capability.
  Let me take a short time to show some examples. Looking at this 
chart, we can see why we have such big charts.
  Here are the Federal preschool and daycare programs. So if someone 
wants to provide that to somebody, look at the maze of bureaucracy they 
have to go through just to qualify.
  The pink areas on this chart show the different departments that run 
them. The blue areas are the subagencies created out of the green ones. 
So we can see, in Federal preschool and daycare, we have the General 
Services Administration, that has four programs; we have the Department 
of Agriculture, that has this multitude of programs. But even if you 
have it at the Department of Agriculture, you cannot do anything 
because you have to talk to the Department of Education too, because 
they are interrelated in how they are controlled.
  Early learning. The Justice Department has a multitude of programs. 
The Department of Health and Human Services has a multitude of 
programs. We even have a tax expenditure program for childcare and 
early learning. The Department of Labor has their own.
  We can see what has happened to us is we have not done the oversight, 
the work to eliminate the problems that are causing us to spend at 
least $200 billion more per year than we need to spend.
  Here are the Federal programs for surface transportation and 
infrastructure. We can see why this is so big. Here is the Federal 
Highway Administration and here are all their subprograms for it. Then 
over here is the Office of the Secretary. Then we have the Federal 
Railroad Administration; we have the Maritime Administration; we have 
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. If you are a State 
transportation director, you have to meet the bureaucratic requirements 
of every one of these programs.
  I talked about science, technology, engineering, and math. Look at 
what we have. What we have is a maze where nobody in the government 
knows what the other agency is doing. Nobody knows what somebody over 
here in the Mickey Leland Energy Fellowship funding is doing compared 
with the New Era Rural Technology Competitive Grants Program.
  Here is the other thing we have found as we have gone through all 
these programs: We have people who apply for a grant and get it from 
one of these programs and then turn around and go over and apply for 
the same grant from another program.
  It is easy to see, when we continue to see multiple programs--here, 
even to get efficient in our Federal fleet, we have 5 different 
programs, 20 different agencies, just to try to get fuel efficiency 
within the Federal Government. We started out with electronic health 
records systems for veterans and the military. We have 10 different 
programs within that--not 1 program, not 2, but 10.
  Just one other. Here is a chart with green buildings. We listed that: 
a multitude of agencies, a multitude of programs. Every department in 
the Federal Government has a green building initiative separate and 
apart from a central area where it ought to be and probably associated 
with the National Institute of Standards and Technology. That ought to 
be who is running it, but it is not.
  We have all these things. All these require rules for you to comply 
with if you are going to get a building permit or you are going to have 
any Federal contracts. It makes no sense.
  I will end.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. COBURN. Nobody in their right mind will agree that what we are 
doing is smart, efficient, effective, and associated with common sense. 
But yet when it comes to doing the hard work of oversight and 
eliminating these duplications, nobody in the Senate wants to do the 
hard work of eliminating them. A conservative estimate is that we send 
out $670 billion worth of grants a year. A conservative estimate is 
that $200 billion of that is totally wasted, and we are sitting here 
squabbling about raising taxes. This budget raises $1 trillion over 10 
years. If we would do our hard work in terms of
  Mr. President, there is so much distraction in the Senate I cannot 
talk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. COBURN. If we would simply do our job, we would not have to have 
tax increases, we would not have to have spending cuts that will gut 
our military, although I can show a lot of waste in the military too, 
to the tune of $50 billion a year. But if we would just do our job and 
actually look in detail--the way GAO has recommended and the way 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has oversighted through the 
years, thanks to the leadership of Lieberman, Collins, Carper, and 
those who preceded them--what we will see is we have all this research, 
we have all this knowledge, we have all this stuff we know we can do, 
but we have no leadership in the Senate to get it done, and we bring a 
budget forward that perpetuates everything I just showed.
  There is no mandate for every committee to eliminate total 
duplication in this budget. There is no mandate in this budget to 
consolidate like programs and eliminate cross-agency interference and 
duplication. There is no mandate in this budget that every grant 
program ought to have a metric on it to see if it actually accomplishes 
something. There is no metric in this budget to give the agencies the 
power and the resources to actually administer the grants effectively 
so we know what they are doing--none of that. This is all ignored.
  As long as we say the only problem is saving Medicare and saving 
Social Security and saving the Defense Department, we are going to 
continue to waste $200 billion a year. I do not know what it is. I do 
not know if it is that I am not an effective communicator or if people 
have other priorities. But our grandchildren are totally dependent upon 
us eliminating so much stupidity. Yet nobody--the Appropriations 
Committees do not want to. Most of the authorizing committees do not 
want to. They will not do the hard work of eliminating the duplication.

[[Page 4542]]

  I did not show the housing. I showed the total amount we spend. Do 
you realize we had paid a housing administrator in Oklahoma for 2 years 
in a town that had no homes. Picher, OK--we cleaned it out because of 
lead contamination. But we kept paying the housing administrator for 
Picher for 2 years--until I found it. I said: Why are we paying this 
guy? There are no homes.
  Those little things, multiplied by a billion times throughout 
government programs, happen every day, and then we tell Americans we 
are going to raise your taxes because we will not do the hard work of 
oversight. We deny our oath when we do that, but we also deny the best 
tendencies and the tradition of this country. We can do a whole lot 
more with a whole lot less money if we would take care of this problem. 
But leadership is lacking on doing it.
  As long as we have our eye on the ball of saving Medicare and saving 
Social Security and do not have our eye on the ball of the things that 
are spending money that we are getting no value for--or very limited 
value--we are going to continue to be in trouble financially as a 
country, even if we do save Medicare and Social Security.
  Every dollar the American taxpayer pays into this country should be 
precious to us. Our foreign aid budget, we never talk about it. Our 
foreign policy has not been reauthorized for years. There has not been 
a full-time inspector general in the State Department in 6 years. We 
have seven open spots for inspectors general to actually look at this 
stuff and to advise us and advise the agencies.
  We are failing to do our job. My only wish for my colleagues is to 
get informed, and if they are on a committee, they do not have to solve 
it the way I solve it, but just solve it. It makes no sense to continue 
to duplicate things.
  As a matter of fact, in job training, here is what GAO said: Of the 
47 job training programs for nondisabled people--we have another 53 for 
the disabled--of the 47 all but 3 do exactly the same thing.
  Either GAO is lying or they are not. If they are not lying, why 
wouldn't we, in the next 2 months in this place, fix those programs to 
make them where they are actually giving real skills, for a real 
livelihood, to people who need real job training. There is no effort at 
all to do that.
  The House just passed a bill, and it barely passed because every one 
of these squares that we show on any one of these charts has a 
constituency. In other words, they are dependent on money coming from 
the Federal Government. So even though it is not efficient and not 
effective, our colleagues do not want to irritate anybody getting that 
money because we are more interested in getting reelected than fixing 
the long-term problems of our country.
  All you have to do is go to our Web site, coburn.senate.gov, and you 
will need a strong anti-emetic for the rest of the week if you read the 
waste and fraud and abuse and thievery that is going on with Federal 
Government programs. This budget does not address any of that waste.
  Do you realize $200 billion out of $670 billion is $2 trillion over 
the next 10 years. If we just fixed that, it would help pull us out of 
the big hole. That is $2 trillion that has a very low economic 
multiplier in our economy versus $2 trillion that might have a bit.
  I will end on this last point: Last year we gave out $4 billion to 
foreign countries that own more than $100 billion of our debt. Ask the 
typical American--we are borrowing money from China, and we are giving 
them foreign aid. They own $850 billion of our debt. Why would we do 
that? We are in debt, we are scrambling, we are borrowing $40 million a 
minute, and we are taking the money we are borrowing from China and 
turning around and giving it back to them in foreign aid. Why would we 
do that? It just shows how out of control all the processes are in 
Washington because we fail to be informed and hold the administration--
whether it is a Bush administration or an Obama administration, all of 
them are guilty. The reason they are guilty is because we are not 
raising the question.
  I will tell my colleagues, they are going to get a vote on a lot of 
this stuff. A lot of my amendments have bipartisan support. But we are 
going to vote. They get to vote on whether they think we ought to 
eliminate duplication. They are going to have 17 separate votes on 
that. I am going to try to wind those into two votes. Vote against 
fixing it and then go home and tell Americans you want to raise their 
taxes $1 trillion, and you do not want to eliminate the stupidity going 
on in Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. COBURN. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to just take one moment before I 
yield time to the Senator from Delaware.
  (Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be no expressions from the gallery.
  Mr. WARNER. I commend my friend, the Senator from Oklahoma, who has 
made this a passion. I would acknowledge this is a challenge that 
transfers between administrations.
  When I was Governor of Virginia, under the previous administration, 
we tried to consolidate workforce training programs. We still had those 
47 programs and were not able at the State level to consolidate into a 
more meaningful approach.
  I recall when I first came to this body, I thought let's at least 
find the low-hanging fruit, and we found those programs that both the 
Bush administration and the Obama administration had agreed were 
duplicative and unnecessary--16 programs, $1 billion; but a billion 
here and a billion there and you are talking about real money.
  I am happy to report 11 of those 16 programs have been eliminated. 
But the fact that there are those that both administrations agreed upon 
that have not been eliminated means there is more work to be done. I 
would simply point out to my friend from Oklahoma there has been 
legislation that he and the ranking member, the Senator from Delaware, 
who has also worked hard on these issues, supported 2 years back called 
the GPRMA bill, the Government Performance Results Modernization Act. 
In that bill for the first time ever, starting this year, there is a 
requirement that each agency of the Federal Government identify not 
only those programs that are the most successful, but those programs 
that are the least successful.
  So regardless of which administration, Republican or Democratic, 
there will at least be some--beyond just OMB putting forward 
information that says where the actual agencies themselves think they 
are not getting good value for the dollar.
  Mr. COBURN. Would the Senator, through the Chair, take a question? 
Does the Senator know the number of agencies in the Federal Government 
that actually know how many programs they have in their agency?
  Mr. WARNER. I know the answer to this because we have talked about 
this in the past. We do not have a complete list of all of the various 
programs.
  Mr. COBURN. There is one agency in the Federal Government that knows 
all its programs. Only one. The Department of Education. They actually 
publish it every year. They actually have done a great job. I 
compliment them. Not one other Federal agency actually knows all of the 
programs that run under their auspices.
  Mr. WARNER. I turn now to my good friend, the Senator from Delaware. 
This has been an extraordinary passion of his. I know as chairman of 
the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, along with the 
ranking member from Oklahoma, this will be an area of great interest 
and focus.
  With that, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. It is ironic; this reminds me of our church. Every now 
and then our minister is going full steam and preaching to our 
congregation. He

[[Page 4543]]

says: I know I am preaching to the choir, but even choirs need to be 
preached to.
  In this case, the folks, ironically, on the floor--Senator Warner, 
Senator Collins, Senator Sessions, and I think myself and Dr. Coburn--
there are probably no Democrats and Republicans more committed to 
figuring out how do we get better results for less money in everything 
we do. So even the choir needs to be preached to. We just had a pretty 
good sermon.
  I have a couple of posters here I want to share. I think they might 
be of some interest and value in this discussion. I like to think of 
spending, as we are trying to rein it in and get it under control, in 
three elements. One of those is entitlement spending, which now is over 
50 percent of what we spend in the Federal Government. It is growing. 
We have something called discretionary spending, which includes 
defense, and the domestic programs which are not entitlements, not 
Medicare, not Medicaid, not Social Security. Then you have got interest 
on the debt. That is pretty much it. That is pretty much it. If you 
look at, again, entitlement spending, Medicare, Medicaid, Social 
Security and other things that we are entitled to, it is over 50 
percent and growing.
  As it turns out, the part of our budget that is being squeezed is the 
discretionary spending. So about half of that is nondefense 
discretionary spending. That includes everything from transportation to 
agriculture, to housing, education, to homeland security, and a whole 
lot of other things as well. Then there is defense.
  If you take a look at this chart, we find that this gray line here is 
actually nondefense discretionary spending. We start out in 1971. It is 
about 4 percent of spending as a percentage of GDP. Today it is about 4 
percent as well. The budget that I believe we received from the House 
of Representatives actually--where they actually drop their spending is 
in that money. That includes workforce development, it includes 
education, it includes infrastructure--roads, highways, bridges, rail, 
ports, all of the above. It includes investing in R&D, research and 
development, through the National Science Foundation, National 
Institutes of Health, and creates among other things goods and services 
and products that we can sell all over the country and all over the 
world.
  Under the House-passed budget, that money, instead of spending about 
19 percent of our budget for nondefense discretionary spending, I think 
we would end up down around 4 percent for all nondefense discretionary 
spending--4 percent of our budget. That is not consistent with the 
priorities of many of us, including those on this side of aisle, 
include our own congressional delegation.
  Here we have health care. This is good. Health care as a percentage 
of GDP. I mentioned Medicare as a percentage of our entitlements, 
including Medicare as a percentage of our budget, now is up over 50 
percent and climbing. If you look at health care as a percentage of GDP 
in this country, we are the green line. What we see from 1961 down to 
about 2010, the green line keeps going up and up and up.
  Today, health care as a percentage of GDP in this country is about 
17, almost 18 percent. I think the next closest country is France. We 
are way ahead of anybody else. We are almost twice as high as the 
Japanese, for example. We spend about 17, 18 percent of GDP. They spend 
about 8 percent. They cover everybody. They get better results.
  When you have health care, the big part of Medicaid spending, 
Medicare spending, in fact all of it, is growing as though it is toxic. 
Entitlement spending continues to grow. We have got to do something 
about that. The discretionary spending part of our budget has actually 
been going down over 40 years by a significant amount of money. Today 
it is less than one-third of our total spending, if you combine defense 
and nondefense nondiscretionary spending.
  So what do we do about it? What we try to do about it in our side in 
the budget, created with a lot of input from Senator Warner, a lot of 
input from Senator Sanders on our side, great leadership by Senator 
Patty Murray, who is the chair of the committee--they have come up with 
a budget that is before us today that says: All right, we know we 
cannot continue to spend as we are doing. We have got to rein in the 
spending, not only on the entitlement side but also on the 
discretionary spending side. We need to raise some revenues.
  They go back to take a page out of the Clinton playbook from, gosh, 
12, 13, 14 years ago, when we had a big deficit--not as big as this. 
But they adopted a deficit reduction plan engineered by Erskine Bowles, 
the Chief of Staff. They did a deficit reduction plan in 1997 with 
bipartisan support that said: For every dollar of spending that we cut, 
we raise a dollar of revenues.
  We ended up with four balanced budgets in a row. The budget that 
comes out of the Budget Committee is similar in that it is dollar for 
dollar, a dollar of deficit reduction on the revenue side, a dollar on 
the spending cuts. But unlike what happened 12 years ago--15 years ago 
actually--we do not get to a balanced budget. If there is a fault in 
the budget that has come out of the Budget Committee, while it reduces 
our publicly held debt as a percentage of GDP from 73 percent, 72 
percent down to about 70 percent in 10 years--it stabilizes and starts 
to bring it down as a percentage of GDP--we still will have a budget 
deficit of over a half a trillion dollars 10 years from now. Is that 
good enough? No. We need to do better. In terms of entitlement program 
spending, we need to find ways to save more money. We need to do it 
without savaging old people and poor people. We need to do it in a way 
that preserves these programs for the long haul.
  We were in our caucus. We had some good presentations from a few of 
the smartest people, health economists, doctors and so forth, that have 
been around. They gave us a whole bunch of good ideas on how to get 
better health care results for less money. We need to do that and more.
  On the discretionary spending side, Senator Collins, who has 
previously chaired the Homeland Security and Government Affairs 
Committee--Senator Coburn and I have the privilege of leading it today. 
We focus literally every day as an oversight committee, trying to do 
oversight of the whole Federal Government, which is a whole lot for one 
committee to do. We do it in conjunction with the GAO. We work off 
their high-risk list, high-risk ways of saving money. Every few years 
they give us these great to-do lists for the Federal Government. We 
work on it in our subcommittee. We work on it with GAO. We work with 
OMB, Office of Management and Budget, we work with the inspectors 
general across the agencies of the Federal Government. We work with 
nonprofit groups such as Citizens Against Government Waste.
  Our whole idea is to focus on wasteful spending, as we ratchet down 
the spending, figuring out where are we going to get good results and 
where are we not. In the programs where we get the kind of results we 
want, we fund them more or we reduce them less. If we are not getting 
the results we need, we close those programs, we reduce those programs. 
That is the way it ought to be. That is the way it ought to be. That is 
the way we are trying to do it.
  Let me see if I have another chart here that might be relevant. When 
Bill Clinton was President in the last 4 years of his administration, 
they negotiated a deficit reduction deal with the Republican House and 
Senate in 1997, dollar for dollar, a dollar of revenue, a dollar of 
deficit reduction on the spending side. And for those 4 years we had a 
balanced budget, revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product. I 
think it was about 19\1/2\ to 20 percent, right around 20 percent of 
GDP.
  Last year, our revenues as a percentage of GDP were down around 16 
percent, I think, between 15 and 16. Even with the fiscal cliff deal 
that was adopted earlier, we will be up to about 18 percent of GDP by 
the end of the 10-year period.
  I would suggest there are three things we need to do here: No. 1, we 
can build on a plan that has come out of the Budget Committee. It is a 
good

[[Page 4544]]

start but it is not the finish line. We need to find additional savings 
in the entitlement programs that do not savage old people or poor 
people and preserve these programs for the long haul.
  We need, in addition to that, revenue. We can do that by closing 
deductions, loopholes, credits. We can means-test a bunch of stuff. But 
we need to come up with the revenue to get closer to 20 percent.
  The last thing, really in conjunction with what Senator Coburn was 
saying, is we need to look at every nook and cranny of the Federal 
Government--every nook and cranny of the Federal Government, from A to 
Z, from Agriculture to Transportation and everything in between. We 
need to ask this question: How do we get a better result for less money 
in everything we do? It is not just the responsibility of our 
committee, Homeland Security and Government Affairs, it is not just the 
Budget Committee, it is every committee. It is all of us who can win 
this together. It is the administration. It is the taxpayers groups. We 
are all in this together. If we are going to get to where we want to 
be, that is a fiscally sustainable roadmap to the future, it has to be 
all hands on deck. It has to be those three things: entitlement reform, 
additional reform, and to really squeeze every dime on the spending 
side and move from a culture of spendthrift to a culture of thrift.
  The budget resolution gets us going in the right direction. We are 
going to meet up in the House in a conference committee, their vision, 
our vision. That is where the real hard work begins. Out of that I hope 
we end up with a real focus on those three things. If we do and we can 
work together, and the administration and the President provide the 
leadership we need, we will get where we need to go in the future.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to Senator Collins. I 
would note that she has been a leader in governmental reform through 
the committee that she chaired and has been ranking member on. I would 
value her insight at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, let me thank the ranking member of the 
Budget Committee for all of his incredibly hard work on this issue. It 
is a hopeful sign that the Senate is finally debating a budget to set 
priorities for Federal spending and revenues in the coming year. While 
I am disappointed that we failed to perform this fundamental duty for 
the past 4 years, and that the budget reported by the Budget Committee 
is, unfortunately, a partisan one, I nevertheless welcome this budget 
debate.
  I wish to describe the amendments I will be offering to the budget 
resolution later today. The first of these amendments is No. 144. It 
would create a deficit-neutral reserve fund for the purpose of 
correcting ObamaCare's definition of what is a full-time employee under 
the law. This amendment would allow employees to work more than 30 
hours a week without triggering possible penalties on the businesses 
that hire them.
  ObamaCare requires businesses with 50 or more full-time employees to 
provide qualified health insurance to their workers or face onerous 
penalties. These penalties begin at $40,000 for businesses with 50 
employees, plus $2,000 for each additional ``full-time equivalent'' 
employee. These penalties are a huge disincentive for any small 
business that wishes to grow and add new jobs.
  One Maine business I know has 47 employees, and it would like to hire 
more but won't because of these onerous penalties. Another employer 
told me she is better off financially if she were to cancel the health 
insurance she provides to her employees and instead pay the fines. The 
fines are cheaper than paying the health insurance premiums for her 
employees. What perverse incentives ObamaCare has.
  Greatly adding to the problem, ObamaCare defines full-time employees 
as averaging just 30 hours of work a week. This definition is 
completely out of keeping with standard employment practices in the 
United States today. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the 
average American works 8.8 hours per day, which equates to 44 hours per 
week. GAO, in looking at this issue, uses 40. We pay overtime after 40 
hours per week. The number of hours set by ObamaCare as full time is 
nearly one-third lower than the actual practice.
  By using this unreasonably low threshold of 30 hours per week to 
define a full-time employee, ObamaCare artificially drives up the 
number of full-time workers employed by a business, exposing the 
employer and business to the risks of substantial penalties.
  The consequences are some businesses are restricting their employees 
to no more than 29 hours per week to ensure their workers are 
considered part-time under ObamaCare. If more businesses follow suit, 
millions of American workers could find their hours, and thus their 
earnings, are cut back at a time when many of them are already 
struggling.
  My amendment would allow for legislation setting a sensible 
definition of a ``full-time'' employee for purposes of ObamaCare 
penalties. This will help protect workers who otherwise will find their 
hours curtailed and their earnings cut as a result of the requirements 
in the ObamaCare law.
  I would note this affects a wide range of employees. This is why you 
have NAM, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the NEA, the 
National Education Association--strange bedfellows indeed--both 
supporting my amendment.
  The second amendment I am offering is amendment No. 459. It calls for 
sensible regulatory reform. Its provisions are based on legislation I 
have introduced in the past, the Clearing Unnecessary Regulatory 
Burdens Act or the CURB Act. This bill is designed to ease the 
regulatory burden on our Nation's job creators and is supported by the 
Nation's largest small business advocacy group, the National Federation 
of Independent Business.
  My amendment would require Federal agencies to take into account the 
impact on small businesses and job growth before imposing new rules and 
regulations. It does this in three ways: First, it requires Federal 
agencies to analyze the indirect cause of regulations, such as the 
impact on job creation, the cost of energy, and consumer prices.
  Second, it prohibits Federal agencies from circumventing the public 
notice and comment requirements by issuing unofficial rules known as 
``guidance documents'' to avoid the review required under Executive 
orders. Third, it helps small businesses avoid unnecessary penalties 
for first-time, nonharmful paperwork violations.
  The third amendment which I will offer is amendment No. 143. It would 
simply require the President, Vice President, and Cabinet-level 
officials to purchase their health insurance through the exchanges 
established by the Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare.
  ObamaCare requires individuals to purchase qualified health insurance 
or face a penalty. Those who cannot obtain coverage through their 
workplace or another source are required to purchase insurance through 
the exchanges which would be created under this law. ObamaCare 
specifically requires most Members of Congress and their staff to 
obtain health insurance through exchanges. If the exchanges are good 
enough for Members of Congress and their staffs, then surely that same 
requirement should apply with respect to the President, Vice President 
and Cabinet-level officials. My amendment would extend this requirement 
to them.
  Finally, I am also pleased to be cosponsoring an amendment with my 
colleague Senator Casey of Pennsylvania to prevent government waste in 
the Job Corps Program by requiring the long-overdue implementation of 
financial management, internal controls, and updated program integrity 
protocols at the Employment and Training Administration.
  What has happened with the Job Corps Program is an utter disgrace. 
This program has significant shortfalls, which are caused entirely by 
the inexcusably poor management of this

[[Page 4545]]

program for 2 years in a row by the Department of Labor. Job Corps is 
expected to be in a shortfall again next year.
  The impact has led the administration to suspend new student 
enrollment into the Job Corps Program. These programs are critical for 
at-risk youth. They provide education, training, and job skills. It is 
a disgrace the administration has had such terrible management in 
Washington that furloughs are happening and students are being denied 
services.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to adopt my 
amendments today.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington has 47 minutes 
remaining, and the Senator from Alabama has 23 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. MURRAY. May I ask the Senator from Alabama if the Senator from 
Virginia may speak for 10 minutes? I see the Senator has some speakers 
on his side?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I believe that would be appropriate.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Virginia 
for helping to craft this budget and for his intense focus on making 
sure we reach a balanced agreement for our Nation's future. This has 
been his lifelong passion, and he has done a great job. He is a great 
working partner, and I appreciate all of his experience.
  I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, let me thank the Chair for her good work 
and putting this budget together, which I believe is the first step as 
we try to resolve this issue.
  The Senator from Washington has mentioned this has become my passion 
in this body. I absolutely believe getting our debt and deficit under 
control, getting the country's balance sheet right has almost become a 
proxy for whether our democratic institutions such as Congress may 
actually work in the 21st century. This debate we are going through is 
an important step in that direction.
  We are about to proceed to the section of debate where a host of 
amendments will be put up, debated, and decided. It is my hope sometime 
later tonight or early tomorrow morning we will be able to conclude 
this process and move on to the next steps.
  As I listen to my colleagues, particularly from the other side, I do 
wish to make three quick, brief points because there are actually a lot 
of agreements between us. I think we all realize that in addition to 
trying to get our tax policies and spending policies right--I agree 
with the Senator from Oklahoma--there are areas of duplication which 
could be improved upon.
  I would point out one amendment this Budget Committee put together in 
a bipartisan fashion--the majority and minority were working together--
was looking at the area of workforce training programs for further 
consolidation. We are able, not just in workforce training but across 
government, to find better ways to combine our programs and obtain more 
effective use of our tax dollars. I look forward to working with 
Members on both sides of the aisle to do that.
  I would also say while we have this problem about how we are going to 
raise our revenues and how we are going to spend, an important 
component of all of this is how we grow our economy. One of the 
challenges I find--and the proposal mostly from the House, which 
appears to be the proposal endorsed by many of our colleagues on the 
other side--I am not sure their budget proposal puts forth a growth 
agenda.
  At the end of the day, countries, just as private companies--and I 
spent 20 years in business, longer than I have in public life--need a 
business plan. Any good business plan invests in three things: people, 
plant and equipment, and an investment plan to stay ahead of the 
competition. Companies do the same thing; namely, invest in education, 
infrastructure, and R&D.
  Unfortunately, the proposal which has been put out by the other side 
of the House would cut our government's investment in domestic 
discretionary spending from what is already at a very meager rate, 
closer to the Eisenhower administration rates. We currently spend about 
16 cents on every Federal tax dollar on all of our domestic 
discretionary budgets combined. Over a period of time their plan would 
take that 16 cents to less than 5 cents.
  I spent 20 years investing in business. I would never invest in a 
business which spent less than 5 percent of its revenues on its 
workforce, its plant and equipment, staying ahead of the competition. 
No country can stay competitive against emerging nations such as China, 
India, and Brazil. And Europe, facing financial crises, is trying to 
reset itself as well. Any of those nations are spending a larger 
percentage of their Federal revenues or their national revenues on 
training the workforce, building their roads, airports, broadband, and 
ports. They are trying to do research and development, which creates 
the intellectual capital which will drive our economy in the 21st 
century. Every other nation in the world with which we compete has a 
much more aggressive business plan than the business plan that would 
have been put forward by the House. Unfortunately, it would be put 
forward by many of our colleagues on the other side if they were 
allowed to cut domestic discretionary spending at the levels they 
propose.
  We have often heard a lot of discussion on this floor about revenues. 
I don't think anyone on either side wants to be taxed more than is 
necessary.
  The other side says we have a spending problem but refuses to look at 
the other side of the balance sheet. As a business guy, I find that 
troubling. I agree there are a number of areas where we need to cut 
back spending.
  Look at revenues on a historic basis, look at revenues on the basis 
of when America had the fastest growth rate in recent time. During the 
1990s, with President Clinton, our Nation added jobs at a record level. 
Our Nation made innovative grants, innovation and discovery of great 
new intellectual property at an unprecedented level. In the 1980s 
America was considered to have seen our best days. We came roaring back 
in the 1990s.
  I didn't hear many complaints about our Tax Code in the 1990s during 
those periods of enormous growth because of those investments and 
because of that growth early in the beginning of this century. Around 
2003, I think this body, and both parties, were part of it and made a 
mistake on assuming that the roaring good times were going to last 
forever. We cut $4.5 trillion over a 10-year period out of the revenue 
side.
  Anybody who runs a business knows you must look at spending and you 
must look at revenues. We took $4.5 trillion out of our revenue stream 
at the very same time we doubled defense spending and increased 
spending on homeland security. We went to war twice entirely on the 
credit card. We provided new benefits for our seniors with prescription 
drugs, and seniors were going through the normal aging process. Many of 
those spending initiatives, again, were supported by both sides. But 
when the music stopped, we realized we had a structural budget deficit 
that now accounts for $16.5 trillion in debt and it goes up by $3 
billion a night. While we have to take steps to rein in spending, we 
also have to realize not to grow government but, just to pay our bills, 
we have to put some of those revenues back into the revenue stream if 
we are ever going to get to some level of balance.
  Well, what does this side of aisle propose? Have they said, You know, 
we need to go willy-nilly and go out and dramatically increase taxes 
even beyond what was proposed in the 1990s? No. Do the folks in this 
budget on the Democratic side say we at least ought to put 70 cents of 
that $4.5 trillion back into the revenue stream? No. Do we say we ought 
to put half of the revenues back into the revenue stream that we took 
out? Again, the answer is no. This budget, combined with what we did on 
New Year's Eve, puts approximately

[[Page 4546]]

$1.575 trillion over a 10-year period back into the revenue stream--
literally only one-third of the revenues that were taken out under the 
so-called Bush tax cuts back into the revenue stream.
  Yet to hear what folks on the other side say, it sounds as though 
this is apocalyptic. Well, I have to tell you, as somebody, again, who 
will match my business credentials against anybody in this body, you 
have to look at both sides of the balance sheet. We have to find ways 
to rein in spending but we also, finally, have to find ways to make 
sure we have a revenue stream to allow us to meet our obligations.
  A final point I wish to make--because I know my colleague, my good 
friend from Oklahoma, wants to rise to speak as well--is that I believe 
very strongly we have to get a handle on our entitlement programs. 
Medicare and Social Security are the two most successful programs our 
government and, for that matter, probably any government around the 
world, has ever implemented and we need to make sure the promise of 
Medicare and Social Security is going to be here for our kids and our 
grandkids.
  Around some of those programs some of the basic math has changed. 
When I was a young person, there were 16 people working for every 1 
person who was on Medicare and Social Security. Today, it is 3. In 15 
years, it will only be 2. So we do have to make changes. And this 
budget starts us down that path--$275 billion in entitlement changes, 
on top of $700 billion in entitlement changes that were part of the 
Affordable Care Act.
  If we are going to make comparisons, apples to apples--and this gets 
a little bit technical, and I will again try to be very brief--I have 
not heard a lot of my colleagues acknowledge this. When this debate 
around debt and deficit really picked up steam--it started back in 2010 
with a lot of very good bipartisan work done by the Simpson-Bowles 
Commission that pointed out we were on an unsustainable path and if we 
didn't take action we would send our Nation over a fiscal cliff. In the 
Simpson-Bowles report, they pointed out we needed to make substantial 
changes, for example, in Medicare and Medicaid. Well, they had some 
proposed changes that would have amounted to roughly over $400 billion 
in savings over a 10-year period.
  What is remarkable, and is not mentioned, is that because--whether it 
is recession or the Affordable Care Act--the rate of increase of our 
health care programs and our entitlement programs over the last 3 years 
has dropped dramatically, and independent of the $275 billion of 
entitlement savings in this budget, based upon the assumptions that 
were made in 2010, based upon the Center for Budget Priorities, in 
2020, because of the declining rate of increase of cost, we will have 
an additional $500 billion in health care savings that are already 
built into this proposal.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds, and 
I will finish.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. I would simply say that I want to commend this debate we 
are having and commend Members on both sides of the aisle. As I said at 
the outset, no budget is going to be perfect for every Member, but this 
is a credible, important first step in this process, and one of which I 
think we can all be proud. I look forward to finishing this debate and 
moving on to the next stage to make sure we put this question of our 
Nation's balance sheet in order and then move on to the other important 
issues our country faces.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I yield to my colleague and friend 
Senator Inhofe. I think Senator Inhofe was told he had 8 minutes but 
this says 5.
  Mr. INHOFE. I would respond to my good friend and say I will take the 
8.
  Mr. SESSIONS. All right. There is 5 minutes, and if the Senator needs 
to go over that a little bit, I will understand.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Alabama very much.
  We have been very much involved--not just myself but the Senator from 
Alabama and others--in this whole sequestration thing. The longer we 
have these hearings on this, the more we come to the realization we are 
not sure a lot of the things we are doing in these cuts are actually 
going to have the effect of cutting. If they did, our concern would be 
the fact that defense, which consumes 18 percent of the budget, would 
be getting 50 percent of the cuts, and that is over and above what this 
President has already done, projecting out in 10 more years at $487 
billion in cuts.
  This sequestration is projected to be--the way it was drafted in the 
Obama sequestration--an additional $\1/2\ trillion. I remember when the 
previous Secretary of Defense was there and he used the word 
``devastating.'' It was devastating.
  One thing that has not been observed is the possibility that some of 
the things that are on there and are designed to be done will actually 
cost more money. Let me share, if I may, some quotes by some of the 
military.
  First of all, Department of Defense Comptroller Hale said--and this 
is very significant:

       We would also be forced to disrupt as many as 2,500 
     investment programs, driving up costs at the very same time 
     we are trying to hold them down.

  In other words, he says that particular part of this could actually 
cost more than the cuts.
  General Odierno said this at one of our hearings:

       The Army agrees that the hidden costs of sequestration may 
     actually nullify any savings anticipated to be gained through 
     sequestration.

  There again, it could actually cost us money, not save us money. 
Admiral Ferguson said the same thing. I like his statement. He said:

       Much like an automobile owner who chooses to skip a series 
     of oil changes today to realize near-term savings . . . 
     eventually his decision will result in the need for a costly 
     engine overhaul later, the downstream cost of cancelled 
     maintenance . . .

  And that is what is going to have to be done under sequestration--

       . . . is both reduced operational availability and much 
     higher depot-level type repairs in the future.

  This is something that was understood by the chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee and myself when Senator Levin and I jointly signed a 
letter to the budget people saying we have a problem; that 
sequestration could cost more, and we recommended that in those areas 
where it costs more, then we would add $16 million--that would be one-
third--to the OCO account so that could be used in the event--only in 
the event--we find we are spending more money on that.
  As I say, I did give a copy of this letter as a reminder to the 
chairman of the committee, Senator Levin. So all we are doing is what 
we requested be done some time ago. Most likely, it is not going to 
cost anything and it is not scored. This is the OCO account, and it is 
increasing it $16 million more, to $66 million. It is interesting that 
in the budget that came over from the House it was $95 million, so this 
is considerably less than that.
  I think this is a good thing to do, and I honestly believe it will 
enjoy enough support that we will be able to get it with a voice vote. 
I can't imagine anyone being against it. Because what we are saying is, 
in an area where it is costing more, we will have something to cover 
that rather than it coming out of the defense budget.
  I will not take a long time on this other one. I don't have the 
assurance yet that we are going to have a vote on it, but I think it is 
very important. There are a lot of us here, and I daresay a majority of 
us in the Senate, who are looking at this United Nations arms trade 
treaty and thinking: Why in the world would somebody want to cede to 
the United Nations, or to any multinational group, the power to make 
determinations as to with whom we trade arms? We may have an ally out 
there that maybe the United Nations doesn't agree with and they would 
be able to keep us, through a treaty, from trading arms with our 
allies--an ally such as Israel, as an example.

[[Page 4547]]

  So I have an amendment--amendment No. 139--that I will try to get a 
vote on because I think we should. This may end up being the only vote 
that is addressing this real hot issue of guns right now, and that is 
all we have heard about in the last few weeks. I am going to tell you 
the actual wording of this so we are not hiding anything.
  If you are for gun control, you won't like this. If you are for the 
multinationalists being in a position to determine with whom we trade, 
you are not going to like this. And to show you what this is, I will 
read the new language in the bill. It says:

       . . . upholding Second Amendment rights . . . preventing 
     the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms 
     Treaty.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. INHOFE. I am going to try hard and encourage our leadership to 
allow a vote on this very significant amendment. And I would say, if we 
could pull out maybe 3 or 4 amendments of all the 200 or 300 
amendments, this would have to be one that most people would consider 
to be a very significant amendment.
  With that, I would only mention one other thing. I am not going to 
bring this up, but I do have an amendment--amendment No. 282. A lot of 
people in States such as Alabama and Oklahoma recognize that our banks 
were not the problem. We didn't have problems in my State of Oklahoma. 
So when we talked about State banks and community banks, we were in a 
position to take care of our own needs and we should not be a part of 
it. So this amendment--and then I will close--merely says we are going 
to come forth with legislation. We are going to draw a distinction, not 
just on Dodd-Frank and that type of legislation, but between community 
and State banks and Federal banks. The latter is where the problem is, 
so let's not try to correct something or fix something that doesn't 
need fixing.
  Before I yield the floor, let me ask unanimous consent to have 
printed in the Record the letter from Senator Carl Levin and myself 
dated March 1.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                  Committee on Armed Services,

                                    Washington, DC, March 1, 2013.
     Hon. Patty Murray,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Jeff Sessions,
     Ranking Member, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Patty and Jeff: In accordance with your request, we 
     are forwarding our recommendations for the FY 2014 budget 
     resolution. As you know the Department of Defense races an 
     unprecedented level of fiscal uncertainty. Congress has not 
     completed action on FY 2013 appropriations, the government is 
     operating under a continuing appropriations resolution that 
     expires on March 27, and the FY 2014 budget has been delayed. 
     Additionally, discretionary accounts face sequestration 
     starting on March 1. Sequestration is expected to increase 
     the cost of defense programs, placing additional demands on 
     the DOD budget in the long run. We urge our colleagues to 
     support passage of full-year FY 2013 appropriations as well 
     as legislation that would eliminate sequestration in FY 2013.
       Normally, the Committee would use the President's budget 
     submission as the starting point for developing our 
     recommendations for the FY 2014 budget resolution. While we 
     do not have a 2014 request the Committee notes that last 
     year's budget, submitted to the Congress on February 13, 
     2012, projected $579.7 billion in discretionary budget 
     authority for the Department of Defense in FY 2014. This 
     total included $535.5 billion for the base budget and $44.2 
     billion for overseas contingency operations. The budget 
     request also projected $17.2 billion for defense programs in 
     the Department of Energy in FY 2014. Last year's budget 
     request, together with the out-year budget projections, was 
     developed pursuant to a new defense strategy released in 
     January 2012. We anticipate that meeting our national 
     security requirements and providing for our men and women in 
     uniform and their families will require the FY 2014 National 
     Defense discretionary and mandatory budget projections that 
     were included in last year's budget submission. We recommend 
     that the budget resolution for fiscal year 2014 include the 
     projected amounts of budget authority and the associated 
     outlays (subject to any technical revisions by the 
     Congressional Budget Office) for national defense.
       If sequestration is implemented over the next seven months, 
     it will impose significant long-term costs on the Department 
     of Defense to recover acceptable readiness levels and carry 
     out the national military strategy. Accordingly, if Congress 
     is unable to enact legislation avoiding sequestration, we 
     recommend that the base budget for the Department of Defense 
     be increased by two to three percent to enable the Department 
     to address these problems. If such legislation is enacted, 
     the increase in funding will not be necessary.
       The Committee recognizes the requirement pursuant to 
     section 411 of the fiscal year 2010 budget resolution that 
     directed Committees to review programs in their jurisdictions 
     to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse, and to include 
     recommendations for improving government performance. Last 
     year, the Committee was responsible for the enactment of the 
     FY 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which 
     reduced the authorization levels for the Department of 
     Defense and the national security functions of the Department 
     of Energy by $29 billion when compared with the levels 
     authorized in FY 2012.
       The FY 2013 NDAA included a number of cuts to the 
     President's budget request. For example, the FY 2013 NDAA: 
     cut more than $660.0 million from the President's budget for 
     military construction and family housing projects; prohibited 
     the obligation or expenditure of FY 2013 funds for the Medium 
     Extended Air Defense System eliminating a $400.9 million 
     expenditure; cut $200.0 million from the Commander's 
     Emergency Response Program; cut $197.0 million from Army and 
     Marine Corps' ammunition procurement accounts; cut $190.0 
     million for the Joint Tactical Radio System; cut $175.0 
     million from excess unobligated balances; and cut $77.1 
     million from the request for development of the KC-46A 
     aircraft program.
       In addition, the FY 2013 NDAA included a number of 
     provisions to improve defense contracting and reduce waste in 
     the operations of the Department of Defense. For example, the 
     legislation:
       Requires the Secretary of Defense to implement a plan to 
     rebalance and reduce the DOD civilian employee workforce and 
     service contractor workforce, achieving a savings of 5 
     percent in each workforce over a 5-year period while 
     providing the Secretary flexibility to exclude critical 
     elements of the workforce and to phase in reductions.
       Improves the cost-effectiveness of DOD contracting by 
     strictly limiting the use of cost-type contracts for the 
     production of major weapon systems; enhancing protections for 
     contractor employee whistleblowers; restricting the use of 
     ``pass-through'' contracts; and clarifying DOD access to 
     contractor cost-and price-information.
       Strengthens the authority of the senior DOD official 
     responsible for developmental testing on major defense 
     acquisition programs.
       Restricts the use of ``pass-through'' contracts by 
     requiring a contracting officer determination to support any 
     contract on which more than 70 percent of the work will be 
     performed by subcontractors.
       Requires DOD to review its existing profit guidelines and 
     revise them as necessary to ensure an appropriate link 
     between contractor profits and contractor performance.
       Requires DOD and other agencies to conduct risk assessments 
     and take steps to mitigate significant risks associated with 
     contractor performance of critical functions in support of 
     overseas contingency operations.
       Requires DOD and other agencies to establish clear chains 
     of responsibility for key acquisition functions in support of 
     overseas contingency operations.
       Added funds to support the DOD Corrosion Prevention and 
     Control program. DOD estimates that corrosion in military 
     equipment costs the Services over $22.0 billion per year; 
     expenditures in this area have yielded an estimated 14:1 
     return on investment by reducing the bill for repair and 
     replacement of corroded systems and parts.
       Added funds to support the DOD Inspector General (IG), to 
     enable the IG to continue growth designed to provide more 
     effective oversight and help identify waste, fraud, and abuse 
     in DOD programs, especially in the area of procurement. DOD 
     IG reviews resulted in an estimated $2.6 billion savings in 
     FY 11--a return on investment of $8.79 for every $1 spent.
       The Committee will continue to develop recommendations to 
     improve the efficient management of taxpayer funds, including 
     identifying additional savings across the full range of 
     defense programs.
       The Committee notes that last year the Department of 
     Defense submitted a program that included $487 billion in 
     budget cuts over ten years. The Secretary of Defense has 
     testified that the additional cuts required by sequestration 
     would be devastating to defense programs and would require a 
     new strategy with an unacceptable degree of risk to our 
     national security. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
     has also stated that the military cannot absorb such cuts 
     without direct impacts to missions and capabilities. We agree 
     with these assessments and urge the Budget Committee to 
     develop a plan that avoids sequestration.
       At this time, absent receipt of the FY 2014 budget request, 
     we believe that the funding levels we are recommending will 
     allow us to

[[Page 4548]]

     meet our current national security requirements. We may wish 
     to amend our recommendations after receipt of the budget 
     request and we look forward to working with you to create a 
     budget that supports our national security.
           Sincerely,
     James Inhofe,
       Ranking Member.
     Carl Levin,
       Chairman.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I 
ask unanimous consent that the time be divided equally between both 
sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I allot myself 5 minutes of the time 
allotted to Senator Cornyn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the spending 
decisions that are crippling the long-term budget outlook and the 
futures of our children and grandchildren.
  I am one of two accountants serving in the Senate, so the purpose of 
the budget resolution makes a lot of sense to me. It is like an 
accounting ledger--a blueprint that lays out spending priorities for 
the country for the next fiscal year. Back in my accounting days, I 
made sure that the ledger balanced. I would look carefully line by line 
at what was being spent and where it was being spent. If the ledger 
didn't balance, I looked at what could be trimmed from the overall 
budget. To do that, I would sit down and prioritize what was needed to 
make the business work, and what could be cut with the least impact on 
the business or its customers. I would also look at where the business 
might be duplicating some of its efforts and what could be cut there.
  But that is not what we are doing in this exercise. We are not taking 
a serious look at spending and making the necessary and tough choices 
about what we can afford.
  We aren't even able to vote on spending items that both sides agree 
are duplicative or wasteful, as we saw during the weeklong exercise 
with the continuing resolution that passed yesterday.
  What we should be doing is asking every agency to prioritize what it 
does from the best to the worst, and then we would be able to compare 
that list to the wasteful and duplicative items that have been 
identified, including some by my colleagues, such as Senator Coburn. He 
has been tireless in his effort to identify these spending items and 
bring them to the attention not only of his fellow Senators but the 
American people. Then we should cut what the Federal Government isn't 
doing well.
  We can also use the principle behind my One Percent Spending 
Reduction Act--also known as the penny plan. This is a bill that has a 
simple and direct plan to achieve the spending cuts necessary to 
balance the budget. It would accomplish the task by cutting a single 
penny from every dollar the government spends every year for 3 years 
and end with a balanced budget after those 3 years. Taking this 
approach, each agency and program within that agency could determine 
its priorities and decide where to cut 1 percent of its budget. 
Guaranteed, if given the choice, agencies and programs--I hope--would 
cut the least important, the least likely to affect staff and overall 
operations. In other words, they would cut what they could do without, 
and every business and every agency has those things.
  The problem is that every program has a constituency. Every program 
has folks who are telling me or my colleagues: Yes, we understand the 
need to cut spending, but my program is an integral part. So don't cut 
me, cut someone else.
  At this point we have to step to the plate and say that there are no 
easy choices left. If we all feel a little bit of pain now, we can 
avoid the pain we will face if we continue to kick the can down the 
road when it comes to our long-term budget outlook. We have to get 
serious about providing a blueprint for future spending that provides a 
path to a balanced budget. We need a blueprint that funds the 
government and necessary programs but takes an honest look at where 
taxpayer dollars are going and makes changes to spend less and spend 
more wisely.
  Some of my colleagues across the aisle have talked about providing 
for future generations in the budget resolution. With this budget we 
are providing for future generations--we are providing them with less 
prosperity and fewer opportunities by refusing to make some hard 
decisions and saddling them with unpaid trillions of dollars in bills.
  I have three children and four grandchildren who live in Wyoming. 
Many of my colleagues have children, grandchildren, nieces, and 
nephews. It is because of them and families across the country that we 
have to make tough choices on our spending priorities, and we have to 
make them now. This budget resolution doesn't do that. Instead, it is 
another missed opportunity, another ledger that just doesn't balance.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum, 
and I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would recognize Senator Cornyn for up to 6 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, tomorrow marks the third anniversary of 
the Affordable Care Act--the law that President Obama said would reduce 
health care costs and strengthen our economy without forcing anyone to 
lose their existing coverage and without raising taxes on anyone making 
less than $200,000. Those were the promises of ObamaCare, but over the 
last 3 years we have seen the reality, which is far different.
  Reality No. 1: Amid the slowest economic recovery and the longest 
period of high unemployment since the Great Depression, ObamaCare 
represents a $1 trillion tax increase that will affect all Americans, 
not just those making less than $200,000.
  Indeed, ObamaCare is a tax increase that will affect everyone, from 
young people with health savings accounts, to middle-class workers with 
families, to senior citizens on fixed incomes. It is a tax increase 
that will punish investment and hinder medical innovation, a tax 
increase that is already discouraging job creation and already hurting 
the economy.
  Reality No. 2: ObamaCare has not solved the problem of rising health 
care costs, and in the years ahead it will make the problem much, much 
worse.
  Remember, during the 2008 campaign, President Obama told us his 
health care plan would reduce family premiums by $2,500. Yet the cost 
of family premiums has increased by nearly $2,400 between 2009 and 
2012. And once the President's health care law is fully implemented, 
premiums will soar even higher.
  All we need to do is look at the front page of the Wall Street 
Journal, which reports:

       Health insurers are privately warning brokers that premiums 
     for many individuals and small businesses could increase 
     sharply next year because of the health-care overhaul, with 
     the nation's biggest firm projecting that rates could more 
     than double for some consumers buying their own health plans.

  The truth is that young people will be hit the hardest, people the 
age of my daughters--31 and 30 years old. The American Action Forum 
recently projected that premium costs for young and healthy Americans 
will ``increase

[[Page 4549]]

by an average of 169 percent.'' Such a dramatic increase in health care 
premiums will come at a time when middle-class workers and families are 
already struggling to make ends meet. After all, the median household 
income in America has fallen more than $2,400 since 2009.
  Reality No. 3: Even if you like your existing coverage, you probably 
won't be able to keep it.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, 7 million Americans 
will lose their health insurance because of ObamaCare. Another study 
estimated that 30 percent of employers would drop their employees from 
their employer-provided coverage. In short, millions and millions of 
Americans who want to keep their existing coverage will be forced to 
give it up.
  Which brings me to reality number four. For starters, ObamaCare is a 
massive job killer. No. 1, it increases a new tax on medical devices 
that is already prompting companies to reduce investment in the United 
States and lay off workers, including in my home State of Texas.
  The Michigan-based company Stryker has recently shut down two of its 
facilities and is cutting 5 percent of its workforce; the Indiana-based 
Cook Medical has cancelled plans to build five new U.S. manufacturing 
facilities; and New York-based Welch Allyn is slashing its workforce by 
10 percent.
  Texas has more than 66,000 jobs in the medical technology industry, 
which ranks as among the top 10 States nationwide. But those jobs are 
at risk. According to one study, the medical device tax could destroy 
as many as 1,400 jobs in Texas alone, and reduce our economic output by 
$252 million. This tax will also hamper innovation and reduce patient 
access to advanced medical devices.
  Not surprisingly, the medical device tax is now facing strong 
bipartisan opposition. In fact, last night 79 Members of this Senate--
Republicans and Democrats alike--voted to repeal it. Seventy-nine out 
of one hundred Senators voted to repeal it.
  Unfortunately, the medical device tax is not the only job killer in 
the President's health care law. But as we consider this litany of 
broken promises and as we sort through all of the unintended 
consequences of ObamaCare, I can only shake my head in frustration.
  Three years ago this Chamber had a unique opportunity to pass 
commonsense, market-driven reforms that would have made health 
insurance more affordable and health care more accessible, while 
safeguarding the doctor-patient relationship and boosting our economy. 
I still believe we can achieve those goals. But the President's health 
care law--now 3 years after it was passed--remains a huge obstacle 
standing in our way.
  That is why I supported an amendment to the continuing resolution 
that would have defunded ObamaCare and an amendment to the budget that 
would have repealed it. Both of these amendments were introduced by my 
colleague Senator Cruz. Along with Senator Cruz, I will continue 
pushing to replace the President's health care law with more sensible 
alternatives.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank Senator Cornyn for his remarks. I think it is a 
cautionary tale that when you pass a bill with the very stated idea 
from the Democratic leader in the House that ``We will find out what is 
in it after we pass it'' then you know we are in trouble.
  ObamaCare is a monstrosity of a bill that has 1,700 references that 
say we will execute this legislation pursuant to regulations to be 
issued by some nameless, faceless government operative somewhere. It 
will bind and affect the very health care of millions of Americans. I 
have become more and more convinced it will not work.
  The budget that has been presented to us today fails to meet the 
challenge of our time. It does not alter, confront, or reform and put 
on a safe path our important Social Security and Medicare Programs, 
both of which are heading to deficit and disaster. They need to be 
fixed now. The sooner we fix them, the better off we will all be. And 
it can be done. It just requires some willingness to stand up and be 
counted and do the right thing.
  There is no reform of the wasteful government duplicative spending 
that goes on. Senator Coburn just went through a whole litany of 
duplicative programs: 47 job-training programs, many education 
programs, huge duplication in highway programs throughout different 
agencies and departments of the government. We know those exist, and 
nothing has been done about it. It does not alter the debt course we 
are on and, in fact, keeps it at the same rate.
  It says we are going to raise $1 trillion in taxes and we are going 
to cut spending $1 trillion, and this is the balanced approach. We have 
been told that over and over: This is a balanced approach.
  But that is not what the budget does. It does indeed raise taxes--at 
least $1 trillion actually--and it increases spending. So the net 
result of this budget over 10 years is to have no effect on the deficit 
even though it raises taxes $1 trillion. A balanced approach, in the 
terms of my Democratic colleagues, is to raise taxes $1 trillion and 
raise spending $1 trillion. This is irresponsible.
  I am baffled by the willingness of my colleagues to proceed in that 
fashion, representing the budget to be something it is not. I think 
they have a guilty conscience, perhaps. We have been trying to keep up 
with how many times they have used the word ``balanced.'' How many 
times in the last 2 days have the Democratic speakers all across the 
board--who have their poll-tested language used the word ``balanced,'' 
when in fact they have an unbalanced budget that does not change the 
debt course and leaves us on a financial path that the CBO Director 
said is unsustainable. But you know the American people want a balanced 
budget, so you say: We have got a balanced approach, a balanced plan, a 
balanced priority, and you use that word over and over, with the idea 
that it sinks into somebody's mind and they begin to believe that you 
have a balanced budget. I can hear an ad agency explaining how this 
works.
  But we don't have a balanced budget. It never balances. It has no 
goal of balancing. It is no closer to balancing than the current 
baseline and current law we are spending on.
  So we have calculated--and the numbers have gone up every hour--201 
references on the floor of the Senate to ``balanced.'' It just now 
begins to highlight the fact of how unbalanced this is, how unbalanced 
this budget is, how it does not do what we need it to do.
  Back when I opposed the nomination of Jack Lew, who was Chief of 
Staff and OMB Director, to be Secretary of the Treasury, we talked 
about his first budget. It was the same way. They decided in early 
2011, after the 2010 shellacking, to produce a budget that did not come 
close to balance. They had a little problem because the American people 
had just whacked the big spenders in the 2000 election. So what did 
they decide to do? They just said it would balance. They said we are 
only spending money we have. We have a budget that does not add to the 
debt. We have a budget that begins to pay down the debt. All three of 
those things were utterly false. The lowest single deficit, in his own 
numbers he submitted to us, was $600 billion. That was the least that 
he had in his entire 10-year budget of what the deficit would be that 
year--$600 billion deficit. Yet he said we have a budget that pays down 
the debt, we have a budget that only spends money we have, and a budget 
you can be proud of.
  That is what we have here. I hate to say it. My colleagues have 
produced a budget that utterly fails to alter the debt course we are 
on. It raises taxes, but it does not use the taxes to reduce the 
deficit. It uses the taxes to fund new spending. It truly does.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The time of the Senator has 
expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. That is the concern we have today. We will head now 
into the votes. I thank Senator Murray for allowing us to have free 
ability to speak and debate. We do not agree on these issues, but we 
will head into an

[[Page 4550]]

afternoon that hopefully will allow our Members a full opportunity to 
get a vote on amendments, if they believe strongly in them. We hope we 
do not have needless amendments, that Members are looking and 
understand the needs of our time.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 30 minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, the only time left in debate right now 
is Democratic time. But in a spirit of bipartisanship, I yield 5 
minutes of our Democratic time to the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. HELLER. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Washington for 
providing time. I rise to discuss three of my amendments that I filed 
to the budget, amendment Nos. 293, 476, and 477.
  My first amendment deals with an issue that is very important to my 
home State of Nevada and nearly one dozen Western States where a bird 
called the sage grouse is found.
  The Department of the Interior has engaged Western States in 
developing State-specific Greater Sage-Grouse management plans to 
address the threat of an Endangered Species Act listing for the bird.
  Nevada is one of several Western States have convened task forces to 
develop recommendations for their respective Governors to serve as a 
foundation for State-level sage-grouse management.
  These State plans are designed to conserve the species and its 
habitat while maintaining predictable land use policies as well as the 
ability to foster a healthy economy and preserve the Western way of 
life.
  These goals can only be achieved if the States, Federal Government, 
and other concerned stakeholders use this opportunity to forge a 
partnership under the ESA.
  My amendment simply reaffirms the importance of this partnership. It 
ensures that States can continue to be drivers in ways to find a 
balance between economic development and reasonable protections for 
wildlife.
  My two other amendments, Heller Nos. 476 and 477, deal with another 
issue important to Nevada, namely, veterans. My first amendment is a 
straight forward amendment that says that the Department of Veterans' 
Affairs needs to ensure that they meet the needs of a growing veterans 
population, female veterans.
  As the dynamics of our Armed Forces are changing so, too, are our 
veterans.
  This measure simply calls on the VA to take into account the 
population of female veterans when planning, leasing or building 
infrastructures that will house veterans.
  Ensuring that our female veterans have a lock on their door or a 
separate wing in the VA facility or separate restroom ensures a level 
of safety and privacy that should be provided without question.
  Last Congress I introduced legislation that focused specifically on 
meeting the needs of female homeless veterans. My amendment builds upon 
this legislation to ensure that it includes all VA facilities.
  Another important component of our growing homeless veterans 
population are their dependents. My other amendment, Heller No. 477 
simply ensures that dependents of homeless veterans who are receiving 
services at a VA-funded shelter are eligible for services as well.
  In Las Vegas last year, there were more than 1,300 homeless veterans 
roaming the streets. Some of these individuals have their children with 
them.
  Right now if a homeless veteran brings their child to a VA facility 
for the night, that facility is not authorized by Congress to provide 
services to the child.
  My amendment ensures that children of homeless veterans--veterans who 
bravely fought to preserve our freedoms--are not turned away from 
receiving services if they are with their parent at a VA facility.
  I urge my colleagues to support these amendments.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, we have about 12 minutes remaining. I 
ask unanimous consent to give 2 minutes of my time to my colleague for 
his closing remarks, and I will take the last 10 minutes.
  I want all of my colleagues to know that we will start votes right 
after we are finished with our closing remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank Senator Murray. She has been a 
great person to work with. She is firm, clear, and tough, and has moved 
us forward. I always felt that when she made a decision, it was 
justified. She kept us under control and let us fuss and complain a 
bit. The content of the plan that the majority has moved forward I 
think explains why they have had difficulty revealing it from the 
beginning. It is because it is not the kind of budget that can be 
defended effectively. Honest people can disagree on policy, but there 
can be no disagreement, I believe, on the need to change our Nation's 
debt course. A singular truth that no one can escape is that the House 
budget changes our debt course while the Senate budget does not.
  The Senate budget increases taxes, increases spending, and during 
that 10-year period another $7.3 trillion will be added to the debt. 
There will be no real deficit reduction, and it never balances. 
Republicans have given opportunity after opportunity, through votes, to 
produce a balanced budget, but that has been rejected.
  The massive debt we racked up to finance our wasteful government is 
pulling down economic growth today. This is so important for us to 
understand. Gross debt--over 90 percent of GDP--weakens growth; not 
tomorrow, it is weakening growth today. In other words, continuing to 
borrow to bail out the government, and keep checks flowing, creates 
debt that pulls down wages, jobs, and job creation. It is time to stop 
shielding the government bureaucracy, which is hurting people today.
  There is nothing virtuous about defending a broken welfare state that 
is trapping millions in poverty. Every time our colleagues raise taxes 
instead of reforming the government, they are enriching that 
bureaucracy at the expense of the people. When they demand more money, 
they are saying that reform is not important, just send us more money; 
we are not at fault.
  I will conclude and say, we have to move away from a budget and a 
plan that enriches the bureaucracy at the expense of the American 
people.
  I thank Senator Murray for her courtesy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I want to thank all of my colleagues in 
the Senate--and in particular, my ranking member Jeff Sessions--for 
their valuable contributions to the debate we have had over the last 
few days and weeks. While there are clear areas of disagreement about 
how to restore our Nation's fiscal health, this is an important 
conversation, and one we can build on.
  We all like the word ``balanced.'' As chair of the Senate Budget 
Committee, a critical part of my role is making sure the voices of the 
American people are heard in the budget process. I believe that budgets 
are about far more

[[Page 4551]]

than numbers on a page. They are about the values and priorities of the 
American people. In their daily lives, families across our country will 
feel the impact of the plan we lay out in a budget, and they deserve a 
seat at the table. That is why at one of my first hearings as chairman, 
we invited inspiring Americans to speak about how the Federal budget 
impacts their day-to-day lives and the opportunities they have had to 
reach their own goals.
  A young woman from New Hampshire named Katyanne Zink attended my 
hearing. She grew up in a low-income neighborhood in New Hampshire. Her 
parents didn't go to college themselves, but they desperately wanted 
the best for their children. Thanks to a great public school teacher 
who encouraged her to aim high, and with the help of Pell grants and 
student loans, Katyanne was able to go to college. She is now giving 
back to her community as an urgent care nurse. Tara Marks of Pittsburgh 
also spoke at our hearing. Tara never expected to find herself in 
poverty, but when she was suddenly hit by hard times, she temporarily 
depended on food stamps to feed herself and her young son. Tara firmly 
believes that without help when she needed it the most, she would not 
have been able to get back on her feet.
  We heard from Patrick Murray, who is an Operation Iraqi Freedom 
veteran. Patrick explained that after suffering severe injuries while 
serving his country, Federal support helped him live independently so 
he could focus on finishing his degree.
  The stories that Katyanne, Tara, and Patrick shared are just a few of 
the millions we must keep at the forefront of this discussion because 
the interest of hard-working Americans must come first in our 
decisionmaking. I am proud that the Senate budget my colleagues and I 
put forward does exactly that. The first priority of our Senate budget 
is creating jobs and economic growth from the middle out, not from the 
top down.
  With an unemployment rate that remains stubbornly high and a middle 
class that has seen their wages stagnate for far too long, we cannot 
afford any threats to our fragile recovery. That is exactly why our 
budget responsibly replaces the harmful and arbitrary cuts from 
sequestration. It removes the unnecessary burden on our economy that 
would lower employment by almost 750,000 jobs this year alone. 
Following the advice of experts across the political spectrum, the 
Senate budget invests in education and job creation targeted through 
infrastructure and training initiatives while putting in place a 
responsible plan for deficit reduction over the long term. To secure 
strong economic growth in the future, our budget invests in our 
greatest resource, the American people, by strongly supporting high-
quality education from preschool through college and career training.
  As my colleague Senator Warner said so eloquently here earlier on the 
floor, we have to stay ahead of our competition. Our budget supports 
Federal R&D, which will help us make sure that growing industries and 
the jobs which come with them take root in the United States, not in 
China or India.
  This budget also recognizes that getting our debt and deficit under 
control is crucial to our Nation's economic strength in the coming 
years. Our Senate budget puts forward serious, responsible deficit 
reduction that reflects the recommendations of bipartisan experts and 
the values and priorities of the American people.
  Back in 2010, the Simpson-Bowles Fiscal Commission recommended 
finding about $4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years. This has 
become, as we all know, the benchmark for other serious bipartisan 
proposals. Building on the $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction put in 
place over the last 2 years, our Senate budget pushes us past that $4 
trillion benchmark with $1.85 trillion in deficit reduction that is 
evenly divided between responsible spending cuts and new revenue from 
the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations.
  This budget cuts spending responsibly by $975 billion, and we make 
some pretty tough choices to get there. By taking the balanced approach 
the American people have consistently called for, our Senate budget 
matches those responsible spending cuts with $975 billion in new 
revenue, which is raised by closing loopholes and cutting unfair 
spending in the Tax Code for those who need it the least. This should 
not be controversial. There is bipartisan support for reducing the 
deficit by making the Tax Code more fair and more efficient.
  If our Senate budget is enacted, the total deficit reduction since 
the Simpson-Bowles report will consist of 64 percent spending cuts, 14 
percent tax rate increases on the rich, and 22 percent new revenue by 
closing loopholes and cutting wasteful spending in the Tax Code for the 
wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations. We will have put our 
debt and deficit on a downward, sustainable path. This is a responsible 
approach. It is a balanced and fair approach. It is one that is 
endorsed by bipartisan groups and experts, and it is one supported by 
the vast majority of American people.
  The Senate budget takes the position that the solution to our fiscal 
challenges will not be found in deep cuts to programs vulnerable 
families depend on. It maintains crucial services that mothers such as 
Tara and millions of other families struck by hard times have used as a 
way to make ends meet while they recover. The Senate budget preserves 
and protects Medicare for seniors today and into the future.
  As Senator Stabenow explained on the floor so well yesterday, 
Medicare is vital to the health and well-being of more than 50 million 
seniors and Americans with disabilities. Upholding our commitment to 
seniors and helping struggling Americans get back on their feet is not 
just good for our economy, it is the right thing to do.
  I realize there are serious differences between the parties, and in 
the last few years it has been especially polarized here in Congress. 
But the House has now passed its budget resolution. We will be working 
here in the Senate to pass ours sometime late this evening. We have 
presented very different visions for how our country should work and 
who it should work for, but I am hopeful that we can bridge this 
divide.
  As we look ahead now, I urge my colleagues to think of the millions 
of Americans such as Katyanne, Tara, and Patrick. I urge them to think 
of the millions of middle-class families across the country who are 
looking to all of us to get this right; families who want us to invest 
in them and their communities; who want us to focus on the economy and 
on opportunity and the future; who are not looking for a handout, just 
a hand up when they need it; a government that works for them during 
the good times and the bad; and who desperately want us to break 
through this gridlock and end the dysfunction that is hurting our 
economy and costing them jobs. They are what this debate is about. They 
are who sent us all here to represent them.
  The Senate budget works for families. It is a balanced and 
responsible plan that will tackle our economic and fiscal challenges in 
a way that puts the middle class and broad-based economic growth first.
  When this comes up for a final vote tonight, I am going to be proud 
to vote for it, and I hope all of my colleagues will do the same.
  When this passes the Senate, by the way, the work is far from 
complete. I will be working with Chairman Ryan in the House and anyone 
else who is interested in coming together to make some compromises, and 
to get to a balanced and bipartisan deal that the American people 
expect and deserve. It is not going to be easy, but I am hopeful it can 
be done. I know the families who sent us here expect nothing less.
  I wish to thank Senator Sessions again for working with me on this. 
We have different views on many issues, but I am proud of the work we 
did together to make sure we had a robust and fair debate in the 
committee and here on the Senate floor. I also wish to thank all of his 
staff who have worked so hard, all of our staff who are continuing to 
work--all of them--very hard behind the scenes to pull this together. I 
wish to thank all of my colleagues again on the Budget Committee for 
contributing their ideas and

[[Page 4552]]

their thoughts and their values to this resolution. I believe we have a 
very strong budget here. I am proud to vote for it, and I am very glad 
to have worked with so many people to get us to this point and, 
hopefully, in not too many hours we will pass the budget in the Senate 
and can go to work for the American people.
  Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Alabama has asked for 2 minutes and I 
would be happy to oblige him as we are trying to work out an agreement 
to get going on votes. I yield him 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. How much time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes.
  Mr. SHELBY. I will try to be careful and quick. I wish to thank the 
distinguished Senator from Washington for yielding the time.
  I rise today to once again express my concerns about the fiscal 
problems facing our Nation. Thus far this year I have held public 
meetings in 61 of my State's 67 counties. Without exception, my State's 
top concern is our Nation's unsustainable debt and its effect on job 
creation and economic growth.
  Alabamians know the Federal debt currently stands at nearly $17 
trillion. Yet they see that the Democratic budget before us does not 
balance--not in 10 years, perhaps not ever. They know the Federal debt 
has increased by $6 trillion under President Obama. Yet they see that 
the Democratic budget proposes to pile on $7 trillion more.
  My constituents know that excessive taxes are choking job creation in 
this country. Yet they see that the Democratic budget costs $1.2 
trillion of new job-killing taxes. They know the stimulus package was 
an abject failure.
  My constituents understand that the more we borrow, the more we must 
pay back in interest. Yet they see that under the Democratic budget, we 
will pay more in interest on the debt--$791 billion--than we will spend 
on national defense. They know that fiscal reform without entitlement 
reform is meaningless. Yet they hear no mention of entitlements in the 
Democratic budget.
  It has been 1,423 days since the Senate passed a budget. My 
constituents waited that long for this. There is little wonder that 
trepidation over our Nation's future is so prevalent. No dominant power 
in world history has remained strong with a weak economy--not the 
Persians, not the Greeks, not the Romans, not the British, not anyone. 
Under the Democratic budget, our Nation would learn that lesson the 
hard way.
  Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I thank all of our Members for their 
patience. I think we have an agreement put together, and we will be 
able to get going, so I would ask for everybody's attention.
  I ask unanimous consent that the next amendments in order to be 
called up after the disposition of the Republican side-by-side 
amendments to Shaheen No. 438 be the following: Menendez No. 651, 
Coburn No. 409, Whitehouse No. 652, Blunt No. 261, Boxer No. 622, 
Hoeven No. 494, Durbin No. 578, Murray No. 653, and Collins No. 144; 
and that the only second-degree amendments in order prior to the votes 
in relation to the amendments listed above be the following amendments 
to the Durbin amendment No. 578: Enzi No. 656, Ayotte No. 657, and 
Baucus No. 658, to be offered in that order en bloc; that 
notwithstanding all time having expired on the resolution, there will 
be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote, with the exception of 
the vote prior to the Enzi second-degree amendment No. 656 to Durbin 
No. 578, where there will be 40 minutes--10 minutes each for Senators 
Durbin, Enzi, Ayotte, and Baucus, or their designees; that the order of 
votes with respect to the second-degree amendments to Durbin No. 578 be 
the following: Enzi, Ayotte, and Baucus; that upon disposition of the 
Collins amendment No. 144, the majority have the next amendment in 
order; finally, that all after the first vote will be 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, we are now going to be starting a 
series of votes. I would ask Members to stay in the Chamber. We are 
going to be very strict on the time in making sure we move through 
these.
  Again, I would ask all Senators to please respect those Senators who 
are speaking so that they can be heard, keep the conversations in the 
cloakroom, and be ready to vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


                           Amendment No. 239

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I would call up amendment No. 
239.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Colorado.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Udall], for himself and Mr. 
     Barrasso, and Mr. Wyden proposes an amendment numbered 239.

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

  (Purpose: To provide additional suppression resources to the Forest 
   Service and the Department of the Interior for the protection of 
communities, homes, water supplies, utility infrastructure, and natural 
                 resources from catastrophic wildfires)

       On page 20, line 19, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 20, line 20, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 46, line 11, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 46, line 12, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, wildfires threaten 
communities all across my part of the country, the West, but I daresay 
all around our great country. That is why I am proud to partner with my 
colleagues, Senators Barrasso, Wyden, Bennet, Merkley, and others from 
the West, to introduce what is a commonsense, bipartisan, and deficit-
neutral amendment to the 2014 budget.
  We need to reduce the Federal budget deficit. We all agree that is 
important. But if we don't invest in firefighting efforts and 
mitigation, that will levy an unacceptably steep and entirely avoidable 
cost upon Colorado and the entire country. So my amendment would allow 
for an increase of $100 million in funding available for wildfire 
suppression.
  I yield time to my friend and colleague and cosponsor Senator 
Barrasso to speak on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I am pleased to cosponsor Udall 
amendment No. 239. Communities in Wyoming and other Western States 
continue to be threatened by wildfires stemming from excessive fuel 
loads in our national forests, continued drought, and excess beetle-
killed timber. I speak in favor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

[[Page 4553]]


  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I suggest we do this by voice vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, our side is amenable. If both Senators 
agree, we will do this by voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 239) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.


                           Amendment No. 630

  Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 
630, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mrs. Fischer], for herself Mr. 
     Cruz, Mr. Enzi and Mr. Johanns, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 630.

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

   (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to protect 
 women's access to health care, including primary and preventive care, 
      in a manner consistent with protecting rights of conscience)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR DEFICIT RESERVE 
                   RELATING TO WOMEN'S HEALTH CARE.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports 
     related to women's access to health care, which may include 
     the protection of basic primary and preventive health care, 
     in a manner consistent with the First Amendment to the 
     Constitution, sections 506 and 507 of Division F of Public 
     Law 112-74, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 
     the protection of religious beliefs and moral convictions and 
     without raising new revenue, by the amounts provided in such 
     legislation for those purposes, provided that such 
     legislation would not increase the deficit over either the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.

  Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I rise today to offer a side-by-side 
amendment to Senator Shaheen's amendment No. 438.
  My amendment defends the rights of employers opposed to subsidizing 
certain health care services because of conscience objections or 
religious beliefs.
  We have all heard from employers, hospitals, and physicians who have 
told us about their concerns about inadequate exemptions for those with 
religious objections to certain types of health care services. In my 
home State, the Nebraska Medical Association passed a resolution in 
2012 calling for increased protection of conscience rights for licensed 
physicians. I am pleased that this amendment does just that.
  The amendment does not add a dime to the deficit, it protects the 
quality of women's health care, and it defends the conscience rights 
and religious principles of employers and physicians. I strongly 
encourage my colleagues to support this important amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, this amendment would allow any employer 
or insurance company to refuse to cover any health care services for 
women based on their own religious beliefs and moral convictions that 
have nothing to do with the health needs of those denied coverage.
  The compromise put forward by President Obama ensures that religious 
liberty is respected while ensuring that women can get access to the 
health care they need. Last year, Judge Carol Jackson, who was 
appointed by President George H.W. Bush, ruled in support of this 
compromise, saying that Federal religious freedom law is ``a shield, 
not a sword . . . it is not a means to force one's religious practices 
upon others.''
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaine). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 55 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--55

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The amendment (No. 630) was rejected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, for the information of all the 
Senators, that vote went a little bit over. We will not let votes go 
over. Anyone who is not in the Chamber is going to miss a vote. We have 
to be able to do this in order to move expeditiously. I want to let all 
Senators know they leave at their own peril.
  With that, I am going to turn to Senator Menendez so he may offer his 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.


                           Amendment No. 651

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 651.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez], for himself, 
     Mr. Lautenberg, Ms. Warren, and Mr. Cowan, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 651.

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

 (Purpose: To call for a comprehensive approach for wage index reform)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO MAKE COMPREHENSIVE 
                   IMPROVEMENTS TO MEDICARE HOSPITAL WAGE-RELATED 
                   PAYMENTS.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     motions, or conference reports that would adjust Medicare 
     payments for hospitals, which may include adjustments to 
     reflect area differences in wage levels, by the amounts 
     provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided 
     that

[[Page 4554]]

     such legislation would not increase the deficit over either 
     the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or 
     the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, this is a side-by-side to Senator 
Coburn's amendment, and while I stand in strong opposition to the 
underlying amendment of Senator Coburn, I do recognize the need for a 
comprehensive examination to the current Medicare wage index system. 
HHS and MedPAC and others have issued detailed reports highlighting 
that very fact, showing that the current system is full of special add-
ons, reclassifications, and other provisions that distort the overall 
system.
  In essence, that amendment would create such harm in so many 
hospitals across this Nation from Alaska to New Hampshire, to Nevada, 
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Rhode Island, just to mention a few. 
Our effort is to look at this comprehensively. We need to look at the 
entire Medicare hospital wage index system. We should not pick out one 
small provision that does so much harm to so many hospitals across the 
country instead of addressing the system as a whole.
  I am joined in this with Senator Warren, Senator Cowan, and Senator 
Lautenberg, among others, and I urge my colleagues to support the side-
by-side amendment so we can address this in a comprehensive and 
responsible way.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. My colleagues might want to hear the other side of the 
story. My amendment reverses $4.6 billion that was taken from rural 
hospitals all across this country and given to two States. Every 
Member's rural hospitals lose money based on the earmark placed in the 
Affordable Care Act. All this does is reverse that.
  There is nothing in the amendment by the Senator from New Jersey 
about wage neutrality, which is the whole problem in the first place. 
The cosponsors, I am sure, of the two States have markedly benefited at 
the expense of every other rural hospital across this country.
  A vote for the Menendez amendment keeps us in line to continue to 
take $4.6 billion over the next 10 years out of rural hospitals. If 
Senators vote for my amendment, we go back to a fair distribution for 
the rural hospital payments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 56 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--50

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The amendment (No. 651) was rejected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                           Amendment No. 409

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, there are no tricks in this. All we are 
trying to do is reverse what was done inappropriately.
  There is no question we need to do some adjustment on wages. That is 
for another time when we actually try to save Medicare.
  This amendment requires all States but two over 10 years to increase 
the payments to rural hospitals back to what they would have been had 
the amendment by Senator Kerry in the Affordable Care Act not been 
there. So that is the whole purpose, to bring us back to where we were.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator offer the amendment?
  Mr. COBURN. I ask to call up amendment No. 409.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], for himself and 
     Mrs. McCaskill, and Ms. Baldwin, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 409.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to sunset the 
provision of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that increases 
   payments to hospitals in a few States by reducing payments to the 
      majority of States through the Medicare hospital wage index)

       At the appropriate place, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO REQUIRE STATE-WIDE 
                   BUDGET NEUTRALITY IN THE CALCULATION OF THE 
                   MEDICARE HOSPITAL WAGE INDEX FLOOR.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     motions, or conference reports that would adjust Medicare 
     outlays, by the amounts provided in such legislation for 
     those purposes, provided that such legislation would not 
     increase the deficit over either the period of the total of 
     fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the total of 
     fiscal years 2013 through 2023.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, if there is no opposition, nobody on my 
side wishes to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition.
  First, there was an error made in the number for the Whitehouse 
amendment for this sequence of votes. I ask unanimous consent that the 
Whitehouse amendment No. 646 be put on the list instead of Whitehouse 
No. 652.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the amendment the Senator has offered 
would reverse a provision in the Affordable Care Act which required 
that Medicare's area wage index changes be spread budget neutrally 
throughout the entire Nation.
  I, as do many, recognize that Medicare's area wage index 
reimbursement system does require a thorough review and revision. But 
the amendment in front of us now singles out one provision that 
negatively affects some areas while ignoring the larger payment reform.
  I believe Congress should have a larger discussion on area wage index 
reform within the committees of jurisdiction, and I urge my colleagues 
to oppose this amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.

[[Page 4555]]


  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 31, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 57 Leg.]

                                YEAS--68

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Nelson
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--31

     Baucus
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Cowan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (NM)
     Warren
     Whitehouse

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The amendment (No. 409) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we are ready to call up the next 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                           Amendment No. 646

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, may I call up amendment No. 646. I 
believe it is the next one in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Whitehouse] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 646.

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

   (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to 
ensuring that all revenue from a fee on carbon pollution is returned to 
                          the American people)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO ENSURING 
                   THAT ALL REVENUE FROM A FEE ON CARBON POLLUTION 
                   IS RETURNED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports 
     relating to the establishment of a fee on carbon pollution, 
     provided that--
       (1) all revenue from such fee is returned to the American 
     people in the form of Federal deficit reduction, reduced 
     Federal tax rates, cost savings, or other direct benefits; 
     and
       (2) such legislation would not increase the deficit over 
     either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 
     2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 
     2023.

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President and colleagues, we have a new Pope, 
Pope Francis, who said last week that our relation with God's creation 
is not very good right now. God's creation runs by laws--the laws of 
nature, the laws of physics, the laws of chemistry--and God gave us the 
power of reason to understand those laws. But they are not negotiable. 
They are not subject to amendment or repeal. And the arrogance of our 
thinking that they are is an offense to His creation.
  We can ignore obvious facts, we can ignore the essentially unanimous 
science, we can ignore our generals and admirals, we can ignore the 
insurance industry's warnings, but we ignore carbon pollution at our 
peril, and we have subsidized it long enough. It is past time to wake 
up from our sleepwalking. This vote is a test. Whether we pass or fail 
is a measure of us.
  I urge that we support this amendment that will allow us to put a 
price on carbon and protect the American people.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I would have some hesitation anyway about 
opposing my good friend from Rhode Island, but to have to oppose the 
Pope is really ominous.
  I know the Pope also mentioned, more times than he mentioned carbon 
tax, helping the poor. This amendment says that if there is a carbon 
fee, we will use it to reduce the Federal deficit, to reduce Federal 
tax rates, to have other direct benefits.
  I would just say, when the poor family cannot pay their utility 
bill--the family who is the last family to get the new refrigerator, 
the family who is the last family to get the insulated windows, the 
family who is the last family to insulate their ceiling--I guess we 
tell them there are going to be some Federal tax rates that will be 
added for a family who cannot pay their utility bill.
  By the way, there are other direct benefits you might be able to use 
whenever you do not have heat or you do not have cooling.
  This is a tax that slows down our ability to compete. The most 
vulnerable among us are the most impacted by this, and I oppose it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 58, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 58 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

     Baldwin
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cowan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Levin
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--58

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kaine
     Kirk
     Landrieu
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The amendment (No. 646) was rejected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and move to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.


                           Amendment No. 261

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk. I ask 
unanimous consent it be called up on behalf of Senator Thune and me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

[[Page 4556]]

  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Blunt], for himself and Mr. 
     Thune, proposes an amendment numbered 261.

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

  (Purpose: To create a point of order against legislation that would 
            create a Federal tax or fee on carbon emissions)

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

     SEC. ___. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST LEGISLATION THAT WOULD 
                   CREATE A TAX OR FEE ON CARBON EMISSIONS.

       (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate 
     to consider any bill, joint resolution, motion, amendment, or 
     conference report that--
       (1) would result in revenues that would be greater than the 
     level of revenues set forth for the first fiscal year or the 
     total of that fiscal year and the ensuing fiscal years under 
     the concurrent resolution on the budget then in effect for 
     which allocations are provided under section 302(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974; and
       (2) for any year covered by such resolution, includes a 
     Federal tax or fee imposed on carbon emissions from any 
     product or entity that is a direct or indirect source of the 
     emissions.
       (b) Waiver and Appeal.--
       (1) Waiver.--Subsection (a) may be waived or suspended in 
     the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (2) Appeal.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be 
     required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a 
     point of order raised under subsection (a).

  Mr. BLUNT. This amendment would protect consumers from energy price 
spikes and workers from significant job loss by providing a point of 
order against a carbon tax or a fee on carbon emissions.
  Energy-intensive jobs are the first to go when your utility prices 
get uncompetitive. Your ability to compete in the world marketplace, 
the price of American-made goods, what families pay at the pump, what 
they pay for heating and cooling, what they pay for every American 
product they make would be impacted by a carbon tax.
  I urge the support of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, except perhaps in Congress, and in the 
boardrooms of ExxonMobil, it is no longer credible to deny what carbon 
pollution is doing to our atmosphere and to our oceans. We aid and abet 
that harm by subsidizing carbon, distorting the market, by violating 
the rule that the cost of a product should be in its price. 
Nonrepealable laws of nature, laws of physics, laws of chemistry are at 
work. History's judgment will be harsh if we continue to fail in 
respecting those laws.
  I urge a ``no'' vote and yield back to the Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending 
amendment is not germane to the underlying resolution and therefore 
violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I move to waive section 305(b)(2) of the 
Congressional Budget Act for consideration of the pending amendment, 
No. 261, pursuant to 904(c)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 59 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Landrieu
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--46

     Baldwin
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cowan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Levin
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are 
46. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and amendment No. 261 falls.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider, and I move to lay that motion on 
the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 622

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 622.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 622.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to 
  protecting the interests of the United States in making a decision 
                 relating to the Keystone XL pipeline)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO PROTECT THE 
                   INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES IN MAKING A 
                   DECISION RELATING TO THE KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for 1 or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports 
     relating to expeditiously analyzing and making decisions on 
     the Keystone XL pipeline, which may include whether the 
     pipeline is in the national interest if it increases oil 
     prices, harms domestic energy security, including through 
     exporting energy products, uses materials not manufactured in 
     the United States, adversely affects individual property 
     rights, otherwise adversely affects job creation in the 
     United States, or our national security by the amounts 
     provided in the legislation for those purposes, provided that 
     the legislation would not increase the deficit over either 
     the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or 
     the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, my amendment simply ensures important 
issues will be addressed, such as how much oil will stay here versus 
how much will be exported and, therefore, will we suffer from higher 
energy prices? How much steel will be made in America? How many private 
property rights suits will result from this pipeline? We have had a lot 
of them on the southern lake.
  How will this affect our national security, the dirty tar sands oil? 
Our American national security experts warn us against the instability 
worldwide caused by climate disruption.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment, regardless of how you feel 
about Keystone. These are essential issues which must be addressed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask this amendment be opposed. It is an 
effort to prevent construction of the

[[Page 4557]]

most studied pipeline in the history of the United States. After four 
environmental impact statements, every one of the reports has shown no 
environmental impact. Every State on the route has approved this 
project. The studies which are asked for in this amendment have been 
done.
  In 2011, the Department of Energy provided a report and said the oil 
will be used in this country, and we will need more. In addition, this 
would preclude local eminent domain laws which would prevent the 
pipeline from being constructed. It also says you can't use any 
materials manufactured in Canada for a pipeline which is built half in 
Canada and half in the United States.
  I urge a ``nay'' vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 33, nays 66, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 60 Leg.]

                                YEAS--33

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Leahy
     Levin
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--66

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cowan
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The amendment (No. 622) was rejected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                           Amendment No. 494

  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, this amendment is a bipartisan amendment. 
It puts the Senate on record in support of the Keystone Pipeline 
project, and that is just appropriate. As I said just a minute ago, 
every State has approved the project. The Department of State has done 
four environmental impact statements over the last 5 years--four--and 
has said there are no significant environmental impacts. So it is time 
the Senate stepped up with the American people.
  In a recent poll 70 percent of the American public said: Build the 
pipeline. Only 17 percent said they opposed it. So it is time for us to 
enjoin every single State on the route to say we support this project. 
We support this pipeline. After 5 years, let's build it.
  This is energy, this is jobs, this is getting our economy going and 
growing, and this is making sure we don't have to import oil from the 
Middle East. It is not just oil from Canada, it is oil from the great 
State of North Dakota and Montana--light, sweet crude we need to get to 
our refineries. Please join me in voting yea.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator call up the amendment?
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I call up the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Hoeven], for himself, 
     Mr. Baucus, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Roberts, Ms. 
     Heitkamp, Mr. Barrasso, Ms. Landrieu, Ms. Murkowski, and Mr. 
     Begich, proposes amendment numbered 494.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to promote 
 investment and job growth in United States manufacturing, oil and gas 
   production, and refining sectors through the construction of the 
                         Keystone XL Pipeline)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE PROMOTION OF 
                   INVESTMENT AND JOB GROWTH IN UNITED STATES 
                   MANUFACTURING, OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION, AND 
                   REFINING SECTORS.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for 1 or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, motions, 
     or conference reports that may result in strong growth in 
     manufacturing, oil and gas production, and refining sectors 
     of the economy through the approval and construction of the 
     Keystone XL Pipeline without raising new revenue, by the 
     amounts provided in the legislation for those purposes, 
     provided that the legislation would not increase the deficit 
     over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 
     through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 
     through 2023.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield to the Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Well, Mr. President, the handwriting is on the wall. I 
see it. But I do believe when my colleague argued against my 
amendment--and he was quite successful--it was not an accurate 
argument.
  The fact is his amendment has already made the decision for us that 
everything is hunky-dory with this pipeline. Well, it is not true that 
all the work has been done. We don't know how much of the steel will be 
American; we don't know how many of the jobs will be American; we don't 
know if our national security people think that dirty tar sands is 
going to create climate disruption.
  Wake up. This is the only place in America where people don't 
understand that real climate disruption is very dangerous.
  You want to talk about polls? Look at what the people think about 
extreme weather. Look at what the people think about too much carbon 
pollution. So there will be another day to fight, but I want to say to 
my friend--he is a good guy, and we have worked well together on this. 
But I hope we will vote no and allow the process to continue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, before we go to this vote, I would just 
remind all Senators that at the end of this vote there will be up to 40 
minutes of debate before the next amendment. I would ask all Senators 
who leave the floor to be back here by 6:30, maybe a little bit before 
that. But I would remind all of my colleagues that if you drift back in 
for half an hour on the first vote, it will be later and later as we 
get through this. So I would really ask everyone who leaves after they 
vote to be back here at 6:30 at the latest. We may yield a little bit 
back, but please be back by that time.
  With that, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Cowan). Are there any other Senators in 
the chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 37, as follows:

[[Page 4558]]



                      [Rollcall Vote No. 61 Leg.]

                                YEAS--62

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Landrieu
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Nelson
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wicker

                                NAYS--37

     Baldwin
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Cowan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Levin
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The amendment (No. 494) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield to the Senator from Illinois.


                           Amendment No. 578

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, amendment 
No. 578. I ask the clerk to please call up the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Durbin], for himself, Mr. 
     Enzi, Mr. Alexander, Ms. Heitkamp, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Johnson of 
     South Dakota, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Reed, Ms. Collins, Mr. 
     Whitehouse, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Cardin, Ms. 
     Klobuchar, Mr. Franken, Mr. King, Mr. Levin, Mr. Pryor, and 
     Mr. Udall of Colorado, proposes an amendment numbered 578.

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

    (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to ensure 
marketplace fairness by allowing States to enforce State and local use 
                               tax laws)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO ALLOW STATES TO 
                   ENFORCE STATE AND LOCAL USE TAX LAWS.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     motions, or conference reports related to allowing States to 
     enforce State and local use tax laws and collect taxes 
     already owed under State law on remote sales by the amounts 
     provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided 
     that such legislation would not increase the deficit over 
     either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 
     2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 
     2023.


                 Amendment No. 656 to Amendment No. 578

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 656 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Enzi], for himself, Mr. 
     Durbin, Mr. Alexander, and Ms. Heitkamp, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 656 to Amendment No. 578.

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

       Strike all after ``DEFICIT'' on page 1, line 2, and all 
     that follows, and insert the following:

     -NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO ALLOW STATES TO ENFORCE STATE AND 
                   LOCAL USE TAX LAWS.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of any committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     motions, or conference reports related to allowing States to 
     enforce State and local use taxes already owed under State 
     law on remote sales by the amounts provided in such 
     legislation for those purposes, provided that such 
     legislation would not increase the deficit over either the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding under the unanimous 
consent request there was 40 minutes of debate allocated between those 
of us in support of the Marketplace Fairness Act and those who are 
offering amendments, Senator Ayotte and Senator Baucus; is my 
understanding correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. Does the Senator mind if I say a word in opening?
  The Marketplace Fairness Act is known to every Member of the Senate 
because I have spoken to everyone on this side of the aisle, and I 
think Senator Enzi and Senator Alexander have spoken to everyone on the 
other side of the aisle. First, give credit to the Senator from 
Wyoming, Mr. Enzi. He began this effort 14 years ago. He is a small 
businessman by profession and when he came to the Senate he saw a 
problem that needed to be solved and he has done yeoman's work to reach 
this point in the debate.
  I salute him for that effort. I thank him for allowing me to join and 
bring it to the floor this day. Special thanks to Senator Alexander 
from Tennessee, who has been an able partner in allowing us to bring 
this matter before the Senate.
  This is an issue every American can understand. We now live in the 
Internet age. Internet retailers are selling things over the Internet 
that we are buying every single day. Estimates are that $150 billion in 
sales are made each year over the Internet. That is part of America. It 
is part of our economy. But it has created an unfairness which we need 
to address with this legislation.
  Back home in Massachusetts, in Illinois, in Tennessee, in Florida, 
there people with shops and businesses who get up every morning and 
open those shops, watch their employees file in and do business 
locally. When they make their sales of goods and services, they collect 
the sales taxes which each State requires and they collect other taxes 
as well. Their taxes sustain businesses, sustain schools and highways 
and police protection.
  Unfortunately, a Supreme Court decision of almost 20 years ago, the 
Quill decision, basically said if we are going to require the Internet 
sales to collect sales tax, Congress has to do it. That is why we are 
tonight on this Marketplace Fairness Act.
  What we are proposing is not a new tax. It is the collection of an 
existing tax, a sales tax that is basically owed in all but four States 
across the United States.
  We believe this is a fair thing to do so those local businesses have 
a fighting chance; otherwise, they are competing against retailers who 
do not collect sales taxes and have that price advantage over them.
  That is not fair to the businesses on Main Street across America. It 
isn't fair to our economy. What we are looking for is basic fairness.
  At this point, I yield the floor to the Senator from Tennessee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Durbin and Senator Enzi 
for their hard work. They have taken a problem and simplified it and 
solved it, in my opinion. This is an 11-page bill, a rarity. It does 
only one thing. It gives States and State legislatures the right to 
decide to collect sales and use taxes that are already owed from all 
the people who owe it rather than just some of the people who owe it.

[[Page 4559]]

  I have a very conservative friend over here on the Republican side 
who said to me: I hate taxes, but the one thing I hate worse is people 
who owe taxes who do not pay them. That is what this is about. But for 
me as a former Governor, there is something even more important; that 
is, the importance that we respect our constitutional framework, which 
says Governors and legislatures should make their own decisions about 
their services and their taxes.
  That is the spirit of the 10th amendment. That is the spirit of this 
country. We don't require States to play Mother May I to the Congress 
of the United States. So we say to the Governor of Tennessee and the 
legislature of Tennessee: You decide whether you want to allow people 
who owe the sales tax not to have to pay it because the sellers do not 
collect it.
  That is why many Democratic Governors support this. But a growing 
number, an honor role of conservative leaders and Governors, support 
the Marketplace Fairness Act. Al Cardenas, chairman of the American 
Conservative Union, supports it. He says the system we have today is 
outdated and unfair. After that, Governor McDonnell of Virginia, 
Governor Corbett of Pennsylvania, Governor Haslam of Tennessee, Chris 
Christie of New Jersey, Mike Pence of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, Jeb Bush, 
Haley Barbour, Rick Snyder--they all say: Look, we are Governors of the 
States. We should have the responsibility for doing that.
  There have been some strange arguments made against this, such as 
wait for tax reform. How can you do this in tax reform if it not in the 
Tax Code? Have we sunk to a new low where we use the State budgets to 
balance our own budget?
  No, this is a straightforward issue. Are we going to respect, as we 
swore to do when we took an oath to this constitutional framework--are 
we going to respect the States, recognize that States have the right to 
be right and the States have the right to be wrong; that Illinois is 
different than Tennessee and Tennessee is different than Wyoming. 
Governors in those States can decide what their tax structure should 
be, how they want to direct it, and they should decide, in my opinion, 
although we do not have to decide that here, that they would not pick 
and choose between sellers, pick and choose between taxpayers and 
businesses. If I walk into the National Boot Company and try on a boot 
and buy it, the seller collects the tax, sales tax. If I order in a 
catalog the seller does not. The Governor of Tennessee wants to be able 
to treat them the same.
  I think we should do this. I fly up here every week for an hour. That 
hour plane ride doesn't make me any smarter than I was when I left 
Nashville. I think our Governor, our Lieutenant Governor, our 
legislature--very conservative, very Republican--understand that they 
do not like taxes, but they do not like, worse--they do not like, 
worse, people who owe taxes but do not pay them, and they want the 
right to fix that problem.
  I am in strong support and stand with the 15 or so Senators on both 
sides of the aisle who endorse the Marketplace Fairness Act. I 
congratulate Senator Durbin and Senator Enzi for their hard work.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I will yield a couple minutes to myself.
  Different States have different regimes. Some States decide they want 
to have income tax. Other States have big property taxes. Other States 
say they want to have sales tax but not income tax. There are many 
States with no income tax and those States are States some people 
gravitate to because they do not want to pay State income taxes.
  But I think States should have the right to choose their own taxation 
system, and we should not pass legislation which tends to force a 
certain State taxation system on the others. That is what this 
legislation does. It basically forces all States to have sales taxes, 
whether they want one or not. In my State of Montana, sales tax is 
anathema. Nobody touches a sales tax.
  What this says is: OK. You can have a sales tax, eventually, in my 
State, because we don't have a sales tax, and, therefore, businesses in 
Montana don't collect sales tax, but they will have to collect tax on 
sales for other States. In effect, we are going to be forced to have 
one and we don't want one. We are going to fight it fiercely.
  Second, basically, the language says, I will read it to you, allowing 
States to `` . . . enforce State and local use tax laws and collect 
taxes already owed under State law on remote sales by the amounts 
provided in such legislation for those purposes. . . . ''
  Essentially, it says a person in California can use State law to 
enforce and collect--and audit even, probably--a businessperson in 
another State. I have never heard of this happening before. Just think 
of it. We are asking, and telling, and directing States to force law on 
another State, at least on another businessman in another State. I have 
never heard of this. This sets a terrible precedent. We don't want to 
do this.
  Next is the complexity of this thing. The authors of this have been 
working on this issue for 12 years, saying they have all these computer 
programs that can do it. We have never seen it. There is no indication 
that all the bugs, over thousands of jurisdictions in States and 
localities and municipalities--just put yourself in the position of a 
small businessperson trying to figure out what in the heck is the law 
in this jurisdiction. What about that? It is going to be changed this 
year or next year, changed in lots of jurisdictions all over the 
country. How are we going to deal with it? We are not going to be able 
to do it. It is just a maddeningly complex situation.
  I have lots of other points I wish to make later, but those are two. 
I believe it makes much more sense, with all the complexity in this 
thing, for the committee of jurisdiction, the Finance Committee.
  I disagree with my good friend from Tennessee. Of course it is a 
tax--not a State tax, not a payroll tax, it is a sales tax. It is a 
tax. We could easily deal with this in the Finance Committee. That is 
our jurisdiction. That is what we are supposed to be doing. Then he can 
deal with all these complexities that have not been addressed in this 
resolution. There are no protections in this resolution whatsoever.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire to 
use in any way she wants.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I stand in opposition to this so-called 
Main Street Fairness Act. There is nothing fair about Federal 
intervention in the Internet marketplace. We have seen so much 
entrepreneurship in the Internet marketplace. Yet what this does is 
force the Internet marketplace and online businesses to become tax 
collectors.
  This act should be called what it is--the Internet tax collection 
act. This act essentially forces States to become tax collectors for 
9,600 State and local tax jurisdictions across this country. It 
tramples on States rights. It tramples on the rights of private 
businesses in all States but especially in States such as mine, New 
Hampshire. It creates a bureaucratic nightmare for these States that 
will have to comply with almost 10,000 tax jurisdictions across this 
country. Guess what. They could be subject to nearly 10,000 tax audits 
within those jurisdictions. One of the businesses in New Hampshire--and 
I see Senator Shaheen is here as well--said that it is a job killer. 
Compliance with this act is absolutely terrifying and another blow for 
so many small businesses that are using the Internet.
  Finally, I say to my conservative friends, there is nothing 
conservative about this. It is the long arm of the Federal Government 
punishing States such as mine that don't have a sales tax and have made 
fiscally responsible choices. It picks winners and losers instead of 
letting the marketplace do it.
  There are a whole host of conservative groups that have come out

[[Page 4560]]

against this act, including the Heritage Foundation and the Campaign 
for Liberty. The Americans for Tax Reform has, in fact, said this 
legislation can only be viewed as a tax increase. In addition to the 
group I just mentioned, the Cato Institute, the National Taxpayers 
Union, and The Heartland are against this as well. There is nothing 
conservative about this. This tramples on States rights. Think about 
it. This act turns online sellers into tax collectors because States 
are cash-strapped. It is wrong. I hope my colleagues will vote against 
it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I think it is time for those on the other 
side to say a word or two.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I appreciate the compliments from the two 
people who are from States that don't have the sales tax. We are not on 
the bill. This is an amendment to find out if a majority of the Senate 
is in favor of making sure we go through with some legislation that 
will actually solve the problem that is over 20 years old.
  This is a problem the Supreme Court decided on and said Congress was 
the one that needed to fix it. They didn't say States should fix it, 
they said Congress should fix it. What we have been trying to do is fix 
it.
  I had a complicated bill before called the streamlined sales tax 
bill. It took care of a lot of the problems we are talking about, such 
as multijurisdictions, and allows for one check to be dispensed to one 
location and then distributed to those who are participating.
  Senator Alexander had a better idea, and that is the one which is in 
the bill that is before us, and that is one which makes it States 
rights. It is where States can decide what they are going to do and how 
they are going to do it provided they follow a certain number of rules. 
This is not as definitive as that bill yet because that bill would have 
to pass through this body as well.
  I can assure everyone that no person in a State that doesn't have a 
sales tax now would have to pay a sales tax. If there is a business 
selling into a State that does have a sales tax, yes, they would have 
to collect that sales tax and forward it to that State. If there are 
complexities or conflicts with that, those can be worked out as the 
legislation goes through too.
  Nobody mentioned that there is a $1 million exemption in the bill. So 
when we talk about small businesses, if they have less than $1 million 
in sales, they don't have to do this. Once they reach $1 million in 
sales, they have to do it the next year so it doesn't become a problem 
that starts in the middle of the year.
  It also requires that the States provide the information and the 
programs for them to do this. So it is a States rights issue, and that 
is what the Supreme Court suggested when they suggested we needed to 
fix this.
  If Senators talk to their small businesses, they will find that they 
want it fixed because there is not fair competition anymore. People 
will come into a store--I was in the shoe business--and try on shoes. 
They get all the help they need, find out what they want, and then just 
order it over the Internet. I think it is kind of interesting when they 
say: Well, I got free shipping. When someone goes into a store and 
tries on shoes, they can get it that day. There is not even a day's 
delay; express shipping is not even needed.
  I hope we are able to work on the bill and actually complete a bill 
and take care of the difference that is taking money away from States. 
They are not asking the Federal Government for a single dollar. They 
are not asking for the Federal Government to enforce this. They are 
asking for the right to have their States rights.
  I yield the floor, and I will keep the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana has 7 minutes, the 
Senator from New Hampshire has 7 minutes, the Senator from Wyoming has 
7 minutes, and the Senator from Illinois has 5 minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Thank you. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the 
Senator from Oregon. I might say that I yield 1 minute to the other 
Senator from Oregon as well. I urge the Senator not to use it all right 
now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Durbin-Enzi amendment forgets that we 
are in a global economy. This measure does not and cannot reach foreign 
retailers. A small business, for example, in Montana is sacked with the 
burdens of this bill. It is an administrative nightmare, which Senator 
Baucus and Senator Ayotte have outlined. Some businesses are just going 
to say: Why not do business in Canada or Mexico or even China. Now, I 
know my colleagues who are advocating this don't intend this result, 
but their legislation really ought to be called the shop Mexico bill or 
the shop Canada bill or the shop China bill. I don't think that makes 
any sense.
  Chairman Baucus handles these global economic kinds of questions in 
the Finance Committee, and that is the place we ought to look at it, 
and that is why we ought to reject this amendment today.
  I yield the floor and reserve my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, in Oregon we don't like the sales tax, 
and that is why we don't have one. It is regressive and more expensive 
to collect. What we hate even more is some State telling us what we 
have to do. I have heard people on this floor talking about States 
rights all the time, and now folks are standing up here and saying: We 
want your retailers to collect our tax, and we are not even going to 
compensate them for their time or effort. That is virtually a taking.
  As my colleague pointed out, this is really about attacking business 
in America, small- and medium-sized businesses in America, which will 
just end up benefiting our foreign competitors. That is wrong, and we 
should oppose this for those multiple reasons.
  I yield back time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to my colleague from New 
Hampshire, Senator Shaheen.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from 
New Hampshire, Senator Ayotte, and the other opponents of this 
amendment.
  Senator Alexander said that States should be able to decide what to 
do about taxes. Well, in New Hampshire we have decided. We don't want a 
sales tax. We don't collect one, and we don't ask our small businesses 
to collect one. And the fact is that this amendment would harm small, 
family-owned retail businesses in New Hampshire.
  I talked to a business in Hudson, NH, which is along the border with 
Massachusetts. He has six employees, and he is about to reach $1 
million in sales. He said that under this legislation, his company 
would have to start collecting taxes not just in New Hampshire but for 
45 other States. It would put him at such a disadvantage that he could 
not continue to grow. Just as Senator Wyden said, what these businesses 
are going to do then is go look for someplace else where they don't 
have to worry about collecting these taxes over the Internet.
  I agree with Senator Alexander. I think we should ensure States 
rights and ensure that small businesses are protected, but we don't do 
that by passing this amendment.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield a couple of minutes to my 
colleague from Montana, Senator Tester. I understand Senator Ayotte is 
going to yield additional time.
  Mr. TESTER. I thank the senior Senator from Montana. I thank the 
Senator for allowing me to be a part of this discussion.
  This is an incredible overreach. The Senator from Wyoming talked 
about the fact that they are not forcing a sales tax on any State, but 
that is what this does. This amendment will require

[[Page 4561]]

our small businesses to collect taxes from other States. This is an 
incredible violation. It changes the entire standard for tax 
collection. It is not a road anyone wants to go down. Yet we are going 
to allow businesses in Tennessee or Illinois or Wyoming or any other 
State in the Union that has a sales tax to walk into my State and tell 
my small businesses that they are going to collect taxes for other 
States. Who is going to pay for that and who is going to do the audit?
  The Senator from New Hampshire said it is a job-killing bill. Well, 
it is a job-killing bill, but it is a great job creator in the 
bureaucracy. We are going to create bureaucracy in this government for 
tax collection like we have never seen before. There will be auditing 
like we have never seen before. Who pays for it?
  I guarantee it is not fair to force this kind of tax collection for 
another State and then tell another State what they have to do to 
collect taxes. It makes no sense.
  There are State and local taxes. There are all sorts of different 
mechanisms here. If there is a State that collects a 5-percent tax and 
another one that collects 10 percent, the business that has a 5-percent 
sales tax will have to collect another 5 percent and bring it back to 
that other State. Does it sound complicated? It is. It is very 
complicated.
  We do not want to go down this road. This is a bad, bad, bad public 
policy. I encourage everyone in this Chamber and everyone who is 
watching on C-SPAN to vote this amendment down.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, how much time remains on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana has 2 minutes, the 
Senator from New Hampshire has 5 minutes, the Senator from Wyoming has 
7 minutes, and the Senator from Illinois still has 5 minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest their side has more time 
remaining, so they should speak next.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thought my colleagues from New Hampshire 
and Montana might share with us a little bit about the amendments they 
are proposing, but in light of them not doing that, I yield 2 minutes 
to the Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming. I will 
yield my time to the Senator from North Dakota, who was a party to the 
Quill decision, which was before the U.S. Supreme Court 20 years ago, 
and who has also served as tax commissioner in the State of North 
Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I would like to make a couple of points 
on foreign corporations. We already collect sales tax and impose use 
tax on foreign corporations all the time. In fact, North Dakota does 
require probating so long as they have a physical presence in North 
Dakota.
  On the issue of New Hampshire and Montana, I will bet I could find 
small businesses that are in New Hampshire and in Montana that already 
collect sales and use taxes for other States. The only thing that this 
does is change the rules regarding what is required on nexus. What is 
the single thing that happens that requires a collection 
responsibility? For years, not just in the Quill case, but National 
Bellas Hess said there has to be a physical presence. The world has 
changed since we have physical presence. We now say economic presence 
is adequate for equal protection to be satisfied.
  What we are asking for is that we look at economic presence the same 
way we do across the boundaries and create fairness for mainstream 
businesses. What do I mean by that? I mean Main Street businesses that 
every day compete against Internet sellers unfairly, Main Street 
business that are struggling, Main street businesses that put ads in 
fliers for local schools and contribute to their community but yet 
cannot survive because they cannot afford a 7-percent or 8-percent or 
9-percent disadvantage in the marketplace. It is not fair. It is not 
fair to Main Street. We need to recognize the reality. We have heard 
about the global economy. My colleague is right, the economy has 
changed. How we do business doesn't depend on physical presence 
anymore, it is economic presence, and $1 million is a lot of economic 
presence in the marketplace.
  So I yield the remainder of my time back to the Senator from 
Illinois.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, things are getting a little down to the 
wire here. How much time is remaining?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, is there any time remaining of the time 
yielded from the Senator from Wyoming?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming has 4 minutes 
remaining.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Oregon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. I will be very brief. Under this amendment, we could not 
touch an online retailer that is wholly overseas shipping into the 
United States with UPS. We could not touch them.
  What the Senator from North Dakota is talking about is obviously 
foreign corporations, people with physical presence. But if you are 
wholly overseas, an online Internet retailer shipping into this 
country, you get a free ride under this legislation. That is why it is 
going to create an incentive to take American jobs from here and locate 
overseas where they get a free ride.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. AYOTTE. I yield 3 minutes of my time to the Senator from Florida, 
Mr. Rubio.
  Mr. RUBIO. This is a very interesting debate. It is a very 
interesting topic to talk about. I have talked to a few Members who 
have had this debate internally with their staff, and from an 
intellectual perspective it is a very interesting issue. But I want 
Members to understand what they will have to explain to people in their 
States.
  If something like this were to happen, there will be businesses in 
your State that at the end of the year will have to be audited by or 
interact with States across the country, on the other side of the 
country; places where they don't know anybody, places where they don't 
have a lawyer or a lobbyist or anybody representing them. They will 
have to deal with States they have nothing to do with. That is what 
Members will have to explain to the businesses in their States.
  The businesses in your States are going to have to comply with laws 
and courts and regulatory agencies and others they have nothing to do 
with, other than the fact that someone who lived there happened to buy 
something from them. So try explaining that. It sounds great here, but 
try to explain that to a business man or woman in your community or in 
your State, and I guarantee you are going to get puzzled looks.
  Here is another thing I will tell my colleagues, because I understand 
there is an exemption for businesses with $1 million in revenue, but 
depending on what you sell, it may or may not be that much. I would say 
that over time, that figure is going to be less and less in terms of 
who doesn't have to comply.
  I dealt with this issue when I was in the State legislature in 
Florida, especially the last 2 years when I was the Speaker. I will be 
frank. This is about the fact that according to some, there is $23 
billion of what they claim is uncollected sales tax receipts across the 
country. You don't think that gets their attention? You don't think 
that is what this is about? That is what this is about. I am not saying 
that on the retail side they are not interested in the way the business 
is conducted and what it means in comparison to their competitors, but 
I promise my colleagues from the governmental side this is about the 
money they think they can get their hands on and what it would mean for 
their government and their ability to function.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I will inquire again as to the time 
remaining.

[[Page 4562]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana has 1 minute.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Does the other side have any time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senators from Wyoming and Illinois have 5 
minutes each.
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. We have heard a lot of complaints from primarily the non-
sales-tax States about the amendment we have proposed, but we haven't 
heard about the amendments they have proposed. I thought they would use 
part of their time to make the case for what they were proposing. I am 
still expecting them to do that, and when they do that, then we ought 
to have some time for rebuttal. That is why we have saved some of our 
time. So I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. In the interest of moving this forward, we have scheduled 
a vote on the Ayotte amendment next, after the vote on the Enzi 
amendment. I urge everyone who votes for the Enzi-Durbin-Alexander 
amendment to oppose the Ayotte amendment because she includes a 
provision in that amendment which absolutely destroys the whole effort 
here. She requires physical nexus.
  As Senator Heitkamp has said, that is what this debate is all about--
whether one has to be physically present in order to have an obligation 
to pay sales tax.
  So I urge all of my colleagues who support the Marketplace Fairness 
Act to oppose the Ayotte amendment. I hope she will explain why she 
wants--I think we understand from the arguments why she takes that 
position.
  May I say one or two things about what has been said? To my friend 
from Oregon, Senator Wyden, who talked about the impossibility of 
collecting sales tax from foreign entities, that is just not true. The 
same collection mechanisms presently available to States to obtain and 
enforce judgments against foreign entities would be available to States 
with respect to foreign entities failing to comply with the MFA. States 
currently have, and would continue to have, access to customs 
information on imported goods. Accordingly, States can and do use that 
information as a means of encouraging remote sellers to collect sales 
tax. States currently have, and would continue to have, the ability to 
impose liens on any property owned by remote sellers, even property in 
transit. So to argue we can't collect taxes from international entities 
is to ignore existing law.
  Let me say a word about the small businesses in Montana. After the $1 
million exemption, I would ask my Senator friend from Montana if he 
knows how many Internet retail sellers would be affected by the 
Marketplace Fairness Act in Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Too many.
  Mr. DURBIN. There are 3. There are 3 out of 975 Internet retailers 
with over $1 million in sales. There are 3 in the State of Montana. 
This is an undue burden on the small businesses of Montana?
  What I would say to the Senator from Florida and the Senators from 
Montana, what we are saying is very basic. You aren't forced to sell in 
Illinois. There is no reason you have to sell in Illinois. You choose 
to do it. If you choose to do it, all we say is follow our law. Our law 
says if you make a sale in our State, there is a sales tax to be paid. 
If you don't want to get involved in that, you don't have to sell in 
our State. Keep your marketplace limited to places where you want to do 
business. That is your right as a businessman. But if you want to sell 
in our States, you have a legal obligation to pay in our States.
  If you want to open a business on Michigan Avenue in Chicago, you 
know you would have to pay plenty of taxes. Why is it if you want to 
sell to the same people living on Michigan Avenue, you have no 
obligation to pay a sales tax? That is what this is about.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I would say this: I can't imagine that 
businesses in New Hampshire or businesses in Wyoming or other 
businesses now--if this is passed, not only are they going to have to 
collect--all businesses--all 9,600 tax jurisdictions. But, heaven 
forbid, they are audited because now they are going to have to get on a 
plane, find a lawyer in another State, and deal with some other State's 
jurisdiction. That is the nightmare of this. I can't imagine that 
people would want to support it.
  I also want to mention the privacy implications of this. I know the 
Senator from North Dakota mentioned a case she had. I actually had a 
case when I was attorney general where New Hampshire refused to collect 
tax for Massachusetts. They tried to bring us into court and I won that 
case.
  Do my colleagues know what one of the big issues was that won it? 
Privacy--asking our retailers to ask people who bought things from 
them, where are you from, what are you going to use it for, and that is 
exactly the problem. There are serious privacy implications with all of 
the information that we are going to be gathering with this so-called 
making our businesses across the country tax collectors.
  Generally, States do collect taxes, but we don't generally ask 
private businesses to do the job of the State and become tax 
collectors.
  My amendment is simple. It respects States rights. If anyone wants to 
respect States rights and make sure there is a level playing field for 
all States to make their decisions in protecting data as well as to 
protect the rights of their States against foreign entities, that is 
what the amendment does.
  I thank the Chair and I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee and then my 
final minute to the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. President. We talked about how 
difficult this is. This is a good example of why we need to get this 
out of Washington and back in the States. For the last 15 years the 
States have been figuring out how to do this. They have it pretty well 
worked out, and in just a 20-minute debate we make it sound 
complicated.
  Here is how hard it is. If I buy some ice cream ingredients from 
Williams Sonoma, and they are in another State, I use my credit card, I 
put in my ZIP Code, and the software automatically tells Williams 
Sonoma what the sales tax is that is owed. They collect it and they 
wire it to the State government. That is all that happens.
  This debate sounds like it happened in 1890 before the horse and 
buggy, before the Internet. I mean, we live in a different world.
  Here is what is fair. What is fair is allowing a State--not 
Washington--listen to the chairman of the American Conservative Union 
Al Cardenas. He says:

       When it comes to state sales taxes, it is time to address 
     the area where federally mandated prejudice is most 
     egregious--the policy towards Internet sales, the decades-old 
     inequity between online sales and in-person sales as outdated 
     and unfair.

  If I am trying to run the International Boot Company, I have to pay a 
10-percent penalty to somebody who is out of State. If somebody is out 
of State and by catalog or by Internet they want to sell to the 6 
million people in Tennessee, they don't have to do that. They can sell 
in Kentucky, they can sell in Ohio, they can sell everywhere else. But 
if they want to sell in our State, they should live by the same rules 
Tennesseans do.
  We don't believe in picking and choosing winners and losers. We don't 
believe in treating one taxpayer this way and another one that way. We 
don't want to pick one business this way and another that way, and we 
don't like the idea of Washington making us play Mother May I to come 
up here and ask permission to decide whether we are going to collect a 
sales tax from everybody who already owes it rather than just some 
people who owe it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

[[Page 4563]]


  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Tennessee for making that point. 
As to this notion that there is something fundamentally unfair that we 
would ask an Internet retailer that wants to sell in Illinois that they 
collect the same sales tax for that sale as the businesses in Illinois, 
for goodness' sake, you are asking for a safe haven, an advantage over 
a lot of good small businesses in my home State. As Senator Alexander 
said, if you don't want to abide by the laws of Illinois, for goodness' 
sake, make your sales elsewhere.
  The Marketplace Fairness Act levels the playing field for all 
retailers, Internet and direct. It provides software free of charge to 
help retailers calculate sales and use taxes.
  I heard my friend, the Senator from Montana, talk about how complex 
this was, how difficult this was.
  I just made a recent purchase on Amazon which endorses the 
Marketplace Fairness Act, and I paid sales tax. They didn't ask for any 
additional time to calculate it. It assumes I put in my ZIP Code, and 
they knew exactly what to collect from me. That is how easy and simple 
it is these days.
  This bill will also provide liability protection to ensure that if 
the software calculates the wrong tax, Internet retailers are held 
harmless.
  Finally, the bill protects small businesses, as we mentioned earlier, 
by exempting small sellers with less than $1 million in annual remote 
sales nationwide.
  I know as well that there are other elements of this that ought to be 
considered, but we ought to consider this: There was a time when we 
stayed away from this issue. I remember the Senator from Oregon, Mr. 
Wyden, was in on this conversation about the Internet being brand new, 
the baby in the crib, let him get started, let's make sure they are 
solid and moving forward. We can't ask them to do certain things.
  That day is over: $150 billion in sales. It is in our lives, 
everybody's lives. We use the Internet every day. What is wrong with 
asking them to pay sales tax for the sales into the States where they 
are doing business? Otherwise, look at the disadvantage we create for 
businesses.
  The State of Oregon, represented in this debate, the State of 
Montana, the State of New Hampshire, and one other have decided they 
don't want a State sales tax. There is nothing in this bill which will 
require the residents of that State to pay one penny in sales tax on 
anything they purchase, period. There is no requirement to change that.
  I know, as Dale Bumpers used to say, they hate sales tax in your 
States like the devil hates holy water, but we are not imposing a sales 
tax on you, only if your New Hampshire business wants to sell in 
another State. Then, of course, I think they ought to play by the rules 
of that State. That is basically what we are asking.
  So at this point I ask how much time is remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. DURBIN. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Is there any time remaining on my side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute remains.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I wish to say this: The Senator has it all 
wrong because when the business from New Hampshire--when the person 
from Illinois buys from the business in New Hampshire, it should be up 
to Illinois to enforce against their own residents because they are 
essentially buying from New Hampshire.
  I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from 
Oregon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Baucus.
  Senator Durbin is right. Things have changed. The Internet now is the 
shipping lane of the 21st century, and foreign retailers are going to 
get an advantage.
  Colleagues, if this were enforceable as Senator Durbin and Senator 
Enzi are saying, Europe would go out and put it in place tomorrow and 
do it to our sellers.
  It is not enforceable. It violates the World Trade Organization. It 
advantages foreign retailers at our expense. I hope my colleagues will 
reject the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator from Oregon is right. And I 
see the Senator from North Dakota shaking her head. With all due 
respect, I think she is not correct. This is either enforceable on 
foreign countries or it is not. It is impossible to force our laws on 
other countries unless other countries consent. Just to say so in a 
statute here does not make it true, in a bill does not make it true. 
There has to be a treaty, a tax treaty. There has to be some way for 
the foreign jurisdiction to agree; otherwise, we cannot possibly 
enforce this in other jurisdictions or on the other side, if we do, 
then those other countries can come back and do the same thing to the 
United States.
  Do we want Chinese direct sellers to come back to the United States 
or, vice versa, for the Chinese to collect in the United States? The 
Senator from New Hampshire had it exactly right: It should be the 
purchaser who pays the tax, and that is where it should be enforced, 
not the tax collector, the small businessman in another State.
  I might sum up by saying, we will take this up in the Finance 
Committee and work out all these different kinks and wrinkles on it, 
but that is where it should be done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, do I have the last minute remaining?
  Let me just say, my friend, Senator Heitkamp from North Dakota, knows 
this subject so well. The case you want to read is Buckley v. State of 
California as to whether State laws are enforceable against foreign 
companies. And they are. That decision has already been reached. This 
argument does not hold water.
  What does hold water is this: There is no reason why any State 
retailer should have an unfair advantage doing business in my State or 
any other State. If they want to compete with my businesses that pay 
their taxes, as they are supposed to do, let them do business under the 
laws of the State of Illinois. If they do not want to play by these 
rules, then they do not have to come to Illinois. This is a question of 
fairness.
  The last point I will make is this: This is voluntary--voluntary--
under the Marketplace Fairness Act. States have to voluntarily decide 
that they want to be under this act. If they do not care to be, they do 
not have to be. So there is no heavy hand of the Federal Government 
here. The States can make this decision. It is up to them. I hope that 
all of those who support the Marketplace Fairness Act will support the 
Enzi-Durbin amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, my understanding is that all the debate 
time on this has expired, all the time has expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mrs. MURRAY. And that the Enzi amendment is pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?

[[Page 4564]]

  The result was announced--yeas 75, nays 24, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 62 Leg.]

                                YEAS--75

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cowan
     Crapo
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker

                                NAYS--24

     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Coats
     Cornyn
     Cruz
     Flake
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Inhofe
     Lee
     McConnell
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Tester
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The amendment (No. 656) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator 
Ayotte and Senator Baucus, who are next, are not going to call up their 
amendments. The question now is on the Durbin amendment, as amended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the Durbin amendment.
  The amendment (No. 578), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.


                           Amendment No. 144

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the next amendment that is in order is my 
amendment. I would like to yield to Senator Collins to speak on the 
amendment following mine, Amendment No. 144.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, my amendment is No. 144. I ask unanimous 
consent that it be called up at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 144.

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

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

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

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     motions, or conference reports related to employer penalties 
     in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which may 
     include restoring a sensible definition of ``full-time 
     employee'', provided that such legislation does not increase 
     the deficit or revenues over either the period of the total 
     of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the total 
     of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, my amendment would allow for legislation 
setting a more sensible definition of ``full-time employee'' under the 
Affordable Care Act. Under the Affordable Care Act, also known as 
ObamaCare, the definition of a full-time employee averages just 30 
hours a week. That definition is not found in other areas of the law. 
It is creating this perverse incentive where employers are actually 
reducing the number of hours their employees work in order to keep 
under that 30-hour threshold and thus avoid penalties.
  All this amendment does, however, is call for a more sensible 
definition of what a full-time employee should entail. I ask unanimous 
consent that we voice vote the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I was going to offer amendment No. 653, 
but I am not going to call up that amendment.
  I would agree with Senator Collins on her amendment and ask for a 
voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 144) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, we 
have now gone through all of the amendments from the unanimous consent 
agreement. We are within a couple of minutes of having a unanimous 
consent request for the next group of amendments. I would ask that all 
Senators stay in the Chamber because it will just be a matter of 
several minutes and we will ask unanimous consent for the next group of 
amendments.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the next 
amendments in order to be called up be the following: Begich No. 341, 
Alexander No. 51, Merkley No. 398, Rubio No. 292, Hagan No. 278, and 
Isakson No. 138; that there be no second-degree amendments prior to the 
votes in relation to any of these amendments; that notwithstanding all 
time having expired on the resolution, there will be 2 minutes equally 
divided prior to each vote; that upon disposition of the Isakson 
amendment No. 138, the majority have the next amendment in order; 
finally, all these votes be 10-minute votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Reserving the right to object, I think this is a good 
list. I look forward to moving on. I will try to work with Senator 
Murray and others. Perhaps we may avoid the gaps we have been 
experiencing. We have a lot of Senators here, a lot of things to do. 
There is an anxiousness we shouldn't be having so much downtime, and we 
will be working toward that.
  I thank the Chair and would not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I would agree with the Senator. We are trying to work 
through. Members have a lot of priority amendments. We are trying to 
make sure our lists match. Our staffs are working very hard to go back 
and forth so everybody has equal time on the amendments which are a 
priority to each side. I apologize for taking time to do it. We are 
trying to come to an agreement, and sometimes it takes a few minutes.
  I yield the floor to the Senator from Alaska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                           Amendment No. 341

  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 341.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Begich], for himself, Ms. 
     Cantwell, and Ms. Murkowski, proposes an amendment numbered 
     341.


[[Page 4565]]


  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to the 
                labeling of genetically engineered fish)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO THE 
                   LABELING OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FISH.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for 1 or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports 
     relating to the labeling of genetically engineered fish, 
     without raising new revenue, by the amounts provided in the 
     legislation for those purposes, provided that the legislation 
     would not increase the deficit over either the period of the 
     total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the 
     total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote on amendment No. 
341 offered by the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Begich.
  The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, this amendment deals with labeling 
genetically engineered fish, the first hybrid animal being proposed for 
human consumption. The FDA is reviewing this precedent-setting action 
not as a food but as a drug. They haven't studied the long-time health 
impacts and I can see why because all of these chemicals are added to 
this fake fish.
  At a minimum, this fish should be labeled. Consumer Reports indicates 
95 percent of the population want products labeled. Last year 1 million 
people wrote to the FDA asking for this product to be labeled. Labeling 
is done in 60 other countries. Three weeks ago, major retailers, Whole 
Foods, Trader Joe's, have assured they are not going to sell this fake 
fish.
  We urge support for this amendment and ask it be passed.
  I yield time to Senator Murkowski.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I join my colleague in urging Members to support this 
amendment. All it does is require labeling of this fish, this fake 
fish. If you are going to be serving your family a good-quality 
product, you want to know it is good and it is quality. Allow us to 
label this fish.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I believe we can pass this amendment on a 
voice vote, unless there is an objection. Seeing none, I suggest we do 
this by voice.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 341) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I believe Senator Alexander's amendment is up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, Senator Alexander is off the floor. 
Senator Merkley is here. I would ask unanimous consent to reverse the 
order of these two amendments and go to Senator Merkley and then back 
to Senator Alexander.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield to the Senator from Oregon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                           Amendment No. 398

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 398.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Merkley] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 398.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To increase investment in high-impact breakthrough clean 
   energy technologies through the Advanced Research Projects Agency-
                  Energy of the Department of Energy)

       On page 18, line 23, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 18, line 24, increase the amount by $3,000,000.
       On page 19, line 3, increase the amount by $5,000,000.
       On page 19, line 7, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 19, line 11, increase the amount by $18,000,000.
       On page 19, line 15, increase the amount by $13,000,000.
       On page 19, line 19, increase the amount by $2,000,000.
       On page 19, line 23, increase the amount by $1,000,000.
       On page 46, line 11, decrease the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 46, line 12, decrease the amount by $3,000,000.
       On page 46, line 16, decrease the amount by $5,000,000.
       On page 46, line 20, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 46, line 24, decrease the amount by $18,000,000.
       On page 47, line 3, decrease the amount by $13,000,000.
       On page 47, line 7, decrease the amount by $2,000,000.
       On page 47, line 11, decrease the amount by $1,000,000.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote on amendment No. 
398.
  The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, this amendment increases the Advanced 
Research Projects Agency-Energy of the Department of Energy by $50 
million. This is essentially what we know as ARPA-E. This is the most 
basic research to create breakthroughs in areas which range from 
renewable energy to energy conservation, so on and so forth. Energy is 
the lifeblood of our economy. It is the lifeblood of putting ourselves 
in a position to be one of the nations which sells technology to the 
world, rather than buying it from the world. This is a huge leverage 
issue, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I request Senators be recognized to speak at this 
moment.
  Mr. President, I believe, as I indicated last night, Mr. Lomborg of 
Europe, who has done a lot of research on these issues--energy research 
is preferable to mandating requirements which would utilize inefficient 
sources and oversubsidizing. Breakthroughs might happen. This is a 
paid-for amendment. I would suggest we take it by voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 398) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, Senator Alexander is on the floor, and I 
will yield to him to offer his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.


                           Amendment No. 515

  Mr. ALEXANDER. I call up amendment No. 515.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Alexander], for himself and 
     Mr. Paul, Mr. Toomey, Mr. Rubio, and Mr. McConnell, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 515.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund related to the 
 education of low-income children, which may include allowing funding 
  under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to follow 
  children from low-income families to the school the children attend)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR SCHOOL CHOICE.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports

[[Page 4566]]

     related to the education of low-income children, which may 
     include allowing funding under the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 to follow children from low-income 
     families to the school the children attend, by the amounts 
     provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided 
     that such legislation would not increase the deficit over 
     either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 
     2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 
     2023.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote on amendment No. 
515 offered by the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of 
Senator Paul and myself, with Senators Toomey and McConnell 
cosponsoring. It is designed to help 11 million low-income children in 
this country. We appropriate $14.5 billion every year through our title 
I Federal funding. It is supposed to go to them but it doesn't get 
there. That is agreed upon by both the left and the right.
  For example, Marguerite Roza, writing for the Center for American 
Progress, says the difference between school expenditures is often 
substantial, and she pointed out the money goes to schools where 
teachers are paid more but the children aren't necessarily the poorer 
children. So the poorer children--the ones we intend to help--are left 
in schools with less money. And sometimes the money can add up to quite 
a bit.
  The same analysis has been found by the Fordham Foundation--I would 
say that is a center-right organization--because of the Federal formula 
we use.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. So we are suggesting to let the money follow the child 
to the school, whether it is public or private and accredited.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield our time to the Senator from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the way this amendment is drafted means 
the money that goes to title I could then be taken and go to private 
schools. That is the first thing.
  Secondly, we have tried this before. The District of Columbia has a 
voucher program that we passed in Congress in 2003. And guess what they 
have found since 2003? It made no impact whatsoever on student 
achievement, and now the program is to the point it is being phased 
out.
  Again, at this point in time when we are worried about uncertainty in 
our schools, teacher salaries, and we have the sequester taking money 
from schools, this isn't the time to take even more money out of our 
public school system.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 60, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 63 Leg.]

                                YEAS--39

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--60

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The amendment (No. 515) was rejected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 292

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote on amendment No. 
292, offered by the Senator from Florida, Mr. Rubio.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 292.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Rubio] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 292.

  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate to enact the Child 
                 Interstate Abortion Notification Act)

       At the end of title V, add the following:

     SEC. 5__. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING CHILD INTERSTATE 
                   ABORTIONS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) laws requiring parental notification or consent prior 
     to an abortion, or in the alternative judicial waiver, are in 
     effect in more than half of the States, but these laws are 
     often circumvented by interstate activity in which minors 
     travel or are transported across State lines to avoid laws 
     requiring parental involvement;
       (2) abortion providers use targeted advertising to minors 
     across State lines, using avoidance of parental notification 
     requirements as a selling point;
       (3) when an abortion provider performs an abortion on a 
     minor without parental notification, the provider is likely 
     to lack the complete medical history of the minor, and 
     parents of the minor are unaware of the need to watch for 
     complications that may develop after the abortion when the 
     minor is sent back to her State of residence, far from the 
     provider; and
       (4) parental notification and parental consent laws are 
     supported by overwhelming majorities of the public in the 
     United States.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) a physician who performs or induces an abortion on a 
     minor who is a resident of a State other than the State in 
     which the abortion is performed should be required by Federal 
     law to provide, or cause an agent of the physician to 
     provide, at least 24 hours advance notice to a parent of the 
     minor before the abortion is performed;
       (2) such a Federal requirement for interstate parental 
     notification should not apply if--
       (A) the minor declares in a signed written statement that 
     she is the victim of sexual abuse, neglect, or physical abuse 
     by a parent, and, before an abortion is performed on the 
     minor, the physician notifies the authorities specified to 
     receive reports of child abuse or neglect by the law of the 
     State in which the minor resides of the known or suspected 
     abuse or neglect;
       (B) the abortion is necessary to save the life of a minor 
     whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical 
     injury, or physical illness, including a life endangering 
     physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy 
     itself, provided that the attending physician or an agent of 
     the physician notifies a parent of the minor in writing that 
     an abortion was performed on the minor and of the 
     circumstances of the abortion within 24 hours;
       (C) the abortion is performed or induced in a State that 
     has in force a law requiring parental involvement in the 
     abortion decision of a minor and the physician complies with 
     the requirements of that law;
       (D) the physician is presented with documentation that 
     shows with a reasonable degree of certainty that a court in 
     the State of residence of the minor has authorized that the 
     minor be allowed to procure an abortion; or
       (E) the minor is physically accompanied by a person who 
     presents the physician or an agent of the physician with 
     documentation showing with a reasonable degree of certainty 
     that he or she is in fact a parent of that minor;

[[Page 4567]]

       (3) a parent who suffers harm by a violation of the 
     interstate notification requirement should be entitled to 
     obtain appropriate relief in a civil action, unless that 
     parent has committed an act of incest with the minor;
       (4) whoever has committed an act of incest with a minor and 
     knowingly transports the minor across a State line with the 
     intent that the minor obtain an abortion should be subject to 
     imprisonment of up to 1 year for such transportation, in 
     addition to any other penalties; and
       (5) Congress should enact S. 369, the Child Interstate 
     Abortion Notification Act (CIANA), to accomplish these 
     purposes.

  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, abortion is a divisive issue in this 
country, and I deeply respect everyone's opinions with regard to this 
issue. But there is one thing that is not dividing us. There is one 
thing we are united upon as a people, and that is the idea that parents 
should know what their children are being involved in, especially when 
it comes to a medical procedure of this magnitude. That is why so many 
States have passed parental notification laws that require parents to 
be notified before their child--a minor--undergoes an abortion.
  Unfortunately, in this country there are people who are transporting 
these children across State lines in order to avoid these notification 
laws. This sense of the Senate is based on a bill I have filed, and 
others have supported in the past, that makes that illegal, that does 
not allow that to happen.
  You will hear arguments against this in terms of maybe the child is 
living in a very unstable environment or a dangerous environment. Maybe 
one of the parents--God forbid--is involved in the pregnancy that led 
to this, and that is why there are judicial overrides at the State 
level, so they can go to courts to override it. That is why this sense 
of the Senate is built on a bill that has exceptions for things like 
rape or incest or medical emergencies or a hostile home. So this is an 
important point, and I hope it can garner the support of as many 
Members as possible.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield my time to the Senator from 
California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the Rubio amendment hurts families. It is 
opposed by respected doctors organizations and many women's groups.
  Colleagues, under the Rubio amendment, a doctor and a grandmother 
would go to jail if the grandmother brought her grandchild across State 
lines, say, after she was raped. Senator Rubio insists that only a 
parent be there. But what if the mom is ill or the dad is in 
Afghanistan or she is scared to death to tell her mom or her dad? 
Colleagues, there are cases of daughters dying due to their desperation 
and fear of telling their parents. Let's not endanger our children and 
place government against our grandmothers. Please vote no.
  Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment is 
not germane to the underlying resolution. It, therefore, violates 
section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. RUBIO. I move to waive the rule with regard to the applicable 
portion of the act and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). Is there a sufficient second? 
There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 64 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--51

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Collins
     Coons
     Cowan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 48, the nays are 
51. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 278

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote in relation to 
amendment No. 278, offered by the Senator from North Carolina, Mrs. 
Hagan.
  The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, this amendment establishes a deficit-
neutral reserve fund for families of servicemembers and veterans. My 
home State has the third largest military footprint in the Nation. One 
out of every three people is in the military, a veteran or related to a 
servicemember or veteran. We are proud that we make military families 
welcome in North Carolina because supporting military families is one 
of the best ways we can support our troops.
  This amendment is deficit neutral. It will not add one penny to our 
deficit. It helps to create room in the budget for legislation to help 
military families in areas ranging from health care to housing and from 
education to job placement while their loved ones are serving our 
country away from home.
  A vote for this amendment is a vote for our military families, for 
the sons, daughters, husbands, wives, and families who sacrifice for 
this Nation alongside our troops.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The Senator from 
North Carolina.
  Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 278.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mrs. Hagan] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 278.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund for the families 
             of United States servicemembers and veterans)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE FAMILIES OF 
                   AMERICA'S SERVICEMEMBERS AND VETERANS.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     motions, or conference reports relating to support for the 
     families of members of the Armed Forces and veterans, 
     including--
       (1) expanding educational opportunities;
       (2) providing increased access to job training and 
     placement services;
       (3) tracking and reporting on suicides of family members of 
     members of the Armed Forces;
       (4) ensuring access to high-quality and affordable 
     healthcare; or
       (5) improving military housing;

     by the amounts provided in such legislation for those 
     purposes, provided that such legislation would not increase 
     the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal 
     years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal 
     years 2013 through 2023.


[[Page 4568]]

  Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to consider our 
military families who serve this Nation. They just don't do it in 
uniform.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, unless there are any Senators who wish 
to speak in opposition to this amendment, I know we are all in very 
strong support of veterans. This amendment would make it easier to pass 
legislation, but that legislation would be required to be deficit 
neutral. I think we have to know that nothing comes from nothing. If we 
start new programs, they have to be paid for. But we certainly support 
the goal of this amendment. I suggest we could take it by voice vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, if there is no objection, I suggest we 
voice vote this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 278) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I believe the Senator from Georgia is next.


                           Amendment No. 138

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 138 
offered by the Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 138.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Isakson], for himself and 
     Mrs. Shaheen, proposes an amendment numbered 138.

  The amendment is as follows:

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

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO 
                   ESTABLISHING A BIENNIAL BUDGET AND 
                   APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     motions, or conference reports relating to establishing a 
     biennial budget and appropriations process, by the amounts 
     provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided 
     that such legislation would not increase the deficit over 
     either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 
     2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 
     2023.

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, this is an Isakson-Shaheen budget 
amendment that creates a deficit-neutral fund for the purpose of 
converting our appropriations and budget process to a 2-year process 
where we budget and appropriate in odd-numbered years.
  We would budget and appropriate in odd-numbered years and do 
oversight for efficiencies, finding abuses and finding those programs 
that are not working in even-numbered years. This is a process asked 
for by every President, from Ronald Reagan to our current President, 
and endorsed by Democrats and Republicans in this body. The person who 
knows the most about it is Ms. Jeanne Shaheen, former Governor of New 
Hampshire and a Senator, who is my partner.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague Senator Isakson. I 
was a Governor for three budgets, and we were able to balance them 
every other year every cycle because biennial budgeting gives us an 
opportunity to prioritize scarce resources and provide more oversight 
to the budgeting process.
  This is idea whose time has come. We need this reform and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Is there a Senator who wishes to speak in opposition?
  Seeing none, I yield our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 31, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 65 Leg.]

                                YEAS--68

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Cardin
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Portman
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Schatz
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Wyden

                                NAYS--31

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Casey
     Cowan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Heller
     Hirono
     Kirk
     Landrieu
     Lee
     Levin
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Pryor
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Udall (NM)
     Whitehouse
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
       Lautenberg
       
  The amendment (No. 138) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay the motion 
on the table.
  For the information of all Senators, we have worked through a lot of 
amendments, and I appreciate everybody's hard work. I am about to ask 
for unanimous consent that will lock in the next 16 amendments, which 
will take us well past midnight. I suggest that any Senator who is 
going to need a vote and wants to keep the Senate later talk to either 
Senator Sessions or myself very soon.


Amendments Nos. 693, 307, 198, 697, 482, 263, 314, 247, 606, 689, 537, 
                  535, 442, 514, 273, and 373 en bloc

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next 
amendments in order to be called up be the following: Warner amendment 
No. 693, Thune amendment No. 307, Sanders amendment No. 198, Burr 
amendment No. 697, Reed of Rhode Island amendment No. 482, Paul 
amendment No. 263, Landrieu amendment No. 314, Cornyn amendment No. 
247, Menendez amendment No. 606, Vitter amendment No. 689, Tester 
amendment No. 537, Toomey amendment No. 535, Casey amendment No. 442, 
Coats amendment No. 514, Cardin amendment No. 273, and Lee amendment 
No. 373; that there be no second-degree amendments in order prior to 
the votes in relation to any of these amendments; that notwithstanding 
all time having expired on the resolution, there be 2 minutes equally 
divided prior to each vote; that upon disposition of the Lee amendment 
No. 373, the majority have the next amendment in order; finally, that 
all of these votes be 10-minute votes and the Chair report en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I believe this is a good list, and I 
support this list. I would advise that a number of Senators have 
amendments that they have waited patiently on and that they are 
entitled to get votes on, so we need to move forward. The more 
effectively we can do so, the sooner we can finish. There are some very 
serious matters that have not yet been put on this list that will need 
to be voted on.
  With that, I withdraw my objection.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object----

[[Page 4569]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object. The Senator 
from Alabama talked about Senators who have been waiting for a long 
time. It happens that I was among the very first to put all of mine 
in--I was ready to go--and cut it down to two votes. I am still 
waiting. I will not wait beyond the next time; I am serving notice.
  At this time, I do not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we finalize these amendments, and we will 
have disposed of 41 amendments. Senators are going to have to 
understand that this is not going to go on forever. The average is 
about 30 or 35 votes. After we finish, it will be 41. Everyone should 
understand that we had 400 amendments that had been offered, and we are 
not going to do that.
  Mr. DURBIN. Voice votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I will again remind Senators that if anyone has an amendment, please 
let us know very quickly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. We look forward to working hard as we go forward and 
take up new amendments. It is unfortunate that we are coming to the end 
of the week as we have. We still would have a week when we come back--
the week of April 8--but I know the majority leader wants to finish. So 
we are going to try to cooperate, and I know he will cooperate with us 
as we seek to get as many amendments done and as many people satisfied 
with the issues they are concerned about as is possible.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, if the clerk could call up the amendments 
en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments en bloc.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes 
     amendments en bloc: for Mr. Warner, an amendment numbered 
     693; for Mr. Thune, an amendment numbered 307; for Mr. 
     Sanders, an amendment numbered 198; for Mr. Burr, an 
     amendment numbered 697; for Mr. Reed, an amendment numbered 
     482; for Mr. Paul, an amendment numbered 263; for Ms. 
     Landrieu, an amendment numbered 314; for Mr. Cornyn, an 
     amendment numbered 247; for Mr. Menendez, an amendment 
     numbered 606; for Mr. Vitter, an amendment numbered 689; for 
     Mr. Tester, an amendment numbered 537; for Mr. Toomey, an 
     amendment numbered 535; for Mr. Casey, an amendment numbered 
     442; for Mr. Coats, an amendment numbered 514; for Mr. 
     Cardin, an amendment numbered 273; for Mr. Lee, an amendment 
     numbered 373.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 693

  (Purpose: To repeal or reduce the estate tax, but only if done in a 
                       fiscally responsible way)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO THE REPEAL 
                   OR REDUCTION OF THE ESTATE TAX.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports 
     relating to the repeal or reduction of the estate tax, by the 
     amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes, 
     provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit 
     over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 
     through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 
     through 2023.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 307

 (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to permanently 
                   eliminate the Federal estate tax)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO PERMANENTLY 
                   ELIMINATE THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     motions, or conference reports that may permanently eliminate 
     the Federal estate tax without raising new revenue, by the 
     amounts provided in such legislation for that purpose, 
     provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit 
     over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 
     through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 
     through 2023.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 198

 (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to protect the 
   benefits of disabled veterans and their survivors, which may not 
                         include a chained CPI)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR DISABLED VETERANS 
                   AND THEIR SURVIVORS.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels and limits in this 
     resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions, 
     amendments, motions, or conference reports related to 
     protecting the benefits of disabled veterans and their 
     survivors, which may not include a chained CPI, by the 
     amounts provided in that legislation for that purpose, 
     provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit 
     over either the period of the total fiscal years 2013 through 
     2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 
     2023.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 697

  (Purpose: To create a point of order against legislation that would 
            raise taxes on veterans, and for other purposes)

       Beginning on page 49, strike line 20 and all that follows 
     through page 50, line 2.
       On page 4, line 6, reduce the amount by $20,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, reduce the amount by $40,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, reduce the amount by $55,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 9, reduce the amount by $70,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 10, reduce the amount by $82,110,000,000.
       On page 4, line 11, reduce the amount by $95,881,000,000.
       On page 4, line 12, reduce the amount by $115,534,000,000.
       On page 4, line 13, reduce the amount by $135,203,000,000.
       On page 4, line 14, reduce the amount by $149,801,000,000.
       On page 4, line 15, reduce the amount by $159,650,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, reduce the amount by $20,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 21, reduce the amount by $40,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, reduce the amount by $55,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, reduce the amount by $70,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 24, reduce the amount by $82,110,000,000.
       On page 4, line 25, reduce the amount by $95,881,000,000.
       On page 5, line 1, reduce the amount by $115,534,000,000.
       On page 5, line 2, reduce the amount by $135,203,000,000.
       On page 5, line 3, reduce the amount by $149,801,000,000.
       On page 5, line 4, reduce the amount by $159,630,000,000.
       At the end of subtitle A of title IV, add the following:

     SEC. 4__. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST LEGISLATION THAT WOULD RAISE 
                   TAXES ON VETERANS.

       (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate 
     to consider any bill, joint resolution, motion, amendment, 
     amendment between the Houses, or conference report that would 
     increase taxes on United States veterans or their survivors.
       (b) Waiver and Appeal.--Subsection (a) may be waived or 
     suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-
     fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative 
     vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly 
     chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of 
     the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under 
     subsection (a).


                           AMENDMENT NO. 482

 (Purpose: To provide funding for low-income weatherization and energy 
                     efficiency retrofit programs)

       On page 18, line 23, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 18, line 24, increase the amount by $3,000,000.
       On page 19, line 3, increase the amount by $5,000,000.
       On page 19, line 7, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 19, line 11, increase the amount by $18,000,000.
       On page 19, line 15, increase the amount by $13,000,000.
       On page 19, line 19, increase the amount by $2,000,000.
       On page 19, line 23, increase the amount by $1,000,000.
       On page 46, line 11, reduce the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 46, line 12, decrease the amount by $3,000,000.
       On page 46, line 16, decrease the amount by $5,000,000.

[[Page 4570]]

       On page 46, line 20, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 46, line 24, decrease the amount by $18,000,000.
       On page 47, line 3, decrease the amount by $13,000,000.
       On page 47, line 7, decrease the amount by $2,000,000.
       On page 47, line 11, decrease the amount by $1,000,000.
       On page 57, after line 25, insert the following:
       (4) low-income weatherization and energy efficiency 
     retrofit programs;
       On page 58, line 1, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(5)''.
       On page 58, line 3, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(6)''.
       On page 58, line 4, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(7)''.
       On page 58, line 7, strike ``(7)'' and insert ``(8)''.
       On page 58, line 9, strike ``(8)'' and insert ``(9)''.
       On page 58, line 10, strike ``(9)'' and insert ``(10)''.


                           amendment no. 263

  (The amendment is printed in the Record of Thursday, March 21, 2013, 
under ``Text of amendments.'')


                           AMENDMENT NO. 314

  (Purpose: To modify the deficit-neutral reserve fund for America's 
    servicemembers and veterans to include leases of major medical 
           facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs)

       On page 59, line 25, insert after ``space'' the following: 
     ``, to include leases of major medical facilities,''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 247

(Purpose: To ensure that if the President fails to submit his budget by 
 the deadline set in law the Director of the Office of Management and 
   Budget does not get paid until he submits a budget; and that any 
                    savings will reduce the deficit)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. ___. DEFICIT REDUCTION FUND FOR NO BUDGET, NO OMB PAY.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget shall 
     reduce allocations, pursuant to section 302(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, equal to amounts withheld 
     pursuant to one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     amendments between houses, motions, or conference reports 
     related to the federal budget process, which may include 
     prohibiting paying the salaries of either the Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the OMB Deputy 
     Director, or the OMB Deputy Director for Management, or all 
     three officials, for the period of time after which the 
     President fails to submit a budget, pursuant to section 1105 
     of title 31, United States Code, and until the day the 
     President submits a budget to Congress.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 606

   (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to provide 
      funding for the purposes of embassy or diplomatic security)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR 
                   EMBASSY OR DIPLOMATIC SECURITY.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     motions, or conference reports that would provide funding for 
     the purposes of embassy or diplomatic security, by the 
     amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes, 
     provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit 
     over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 
     through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 
     through 2023.


                           amendment no. 689

(Purpose: To end ``Too Big To Fail'' subsidies or funding advantage for 
       Wall Street mega-banks (over $500 billion in total assets)

       At the appropriate place insert the following:

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

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     amendments between houses, motions, or conference reports 
     related to any subsidies or funding advantage relative to 
     other competitors received by bank holding companies with 
     over $500,000,000,000 in total assets, which may include 
     elimination of any subsidies or funding advantage relative to 
     other competitors resulting from the perception of federal 
     assistance to prevent receivership, or any subsidies or 
     funding advantage relative to other competitors resulting 
     from the perception of federal assistance to facilitate exit 
     from receivership, or to realign market incentives to protect 
     the taxpayer, except in the case of Federal assistance 
     provided in response to a natural disaster, without raising 
     new revenue, by the amounts provided in such legislation for 
     that purpose, provided that such legislation would not 
     increase the deficit over either the period of the total of 
     fiscal years 2014 through 2018 or the period of the total of 
     fiscal years 2014 through 2023.


                           Amendment No. 537

   (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to 
authorizing children who are eligible to receive health care furnished 
under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to retain 
                     such eligibility until age 26)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO 
                   AUTHORIZING CHILDREN ELIGIBLE FOR HEALTH CARE 
                   UNDER LAWS ADMINISTERED BY SECRETARY OF 
                   VETERANS AFFAIRS TO RETAIN SUCH ELIGIBILITY 
                   UNTIL AGE 26.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports 
     relating to authorizing children who are eligible to receive 
     health care furnished under laws administered by the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs to retain such eligibility 
     until age 26, by the amounts provided in such legislation for 
     those purposes, provided that such legislation would not 
     increase the deficit over either the period of the total of 
     fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the total of 
     fiscal years 2013 through 2023.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 535

 (Purpose: To repeal the tax increase on catastrophic medical expenses 
                         created by Obamacare)

       On page 49, strike lines 20 through line 2 on page 50
       The levels in this resolution are amended by--Reducing 
     total revenues by the following amounts
       On page 4, line 6, reduce the amount by $300,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, reduce the amount by $1,400,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, reduce the amount by $1,400,000,000.
       On page 4, line 9, reduce the amount by $2,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 10, reduce the amount by $3,400,000,000.
       On page 4, line 11, reduce the amount by $3,700,000,000.
       On page 4, line 12, reduce the amount by $4,100,000,000.
       On page 4, line 13, reduce the amount by $4,400,000,000.
       On page 4, line 14, reduce the amount by $4,800,000,000.
       On page 4, line 15, reduce the amount by $5,100,000,000.
       And reducing the amounts by which federal revenues should 
     be changed by the following amounts
       On page 4, line 20, reduce the amount by $300,000,000.
       On page 4, line 21, reduce the amount by $1,400,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, reduce the amount by $1,400,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, reduce the amount by $2,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 24, reduce the amount by $3,400,000,000.
       On page 4, line 25, reduce the amount by $3,700,000,000.
       On page 5, line 1, reduce the amount by $4,100,000,000.
       On page 5, line 2, reduce the amount by $4,400,000,000.
       On page 5, line 3, reduce the amount by $4,800,000,000.
       On page 5, line 4, reduce the amount by $5,100,000,000.


                           Amendment No. 442

  (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund for State and 
                         local law enforcement)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR STATE AND LOCAL 
                   LAW ENFORCEMENT.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other levels in this 
     resolution by the amounts provided by a bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report to 
     support State and local law enforcement, which may include 
     investing in State formula grants, to aid State and local law 
     enforcement and criminal justice systems in implementing 
     innovative, evidence-based approaches to crime prevention and 
     control, including strategies such as specialty courts, 
     multi-jurisdictional task forces, technology improvement, and 
     information sharing systems, provided that such legislation 
     would not increase the deficit over either the period of the 
     total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the 
     total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.

[[Page 4571]]




                           Amendment No. 514

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to enable prompt 
   action relating to the Presidential exemption for the rule of the 
 Environmental Protection Agency commonly known as the Mercury and Air 
 Toxins Standard for affected electric utility steam generating units 
   that need additional time to install the major emissions control 
    equipment, construct replacement generation, or implement other 
  mitigation measures in order to ensure the reliability of the grid)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO ENABLE PROMPT 
                   ACTION FOR PRESIDENTIAL EXCEPTION FOR MERCURY 
                   AND AIR TOXINS STANDARD.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports 
     that may allow the Environmental Protection Agency to enable 
     the President to be adequately informed and take prompt 
     action to issue, on a case-by-case basis, Presidential 
     exemptions, which may include exemptions under section 
     112(i)(4) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(i)(4)), 
     without raising new revenue, by the amounts provided in such 
     legislation for those purposes, provided that such 
     legislation would not increase the deficit over either the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.


                           Amendment No. 273

 (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to improve oral 
            health care for children with Medicaid coverage)

       On page 76, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
       (c) Oral Health Care for Children With Medicaid Coverage.--
     The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may 
     revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     motions, or conference reports that improve the oral health 
     outcomes for children covered by Medicaid, including 
     legislation that may allow for risk-based disease prevention 
     and comprehensive, coordinated chronic disease treatment 
     approaches, by the amounts provided in such legislation for 
     those purposes, provided that such legislation would not 
     increase the deficit over either the period of the total of 
     fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the total of 
     fiscal years 2013 through 2023.


                           Amendment No. 373

(Purpose: To provide a point of order against budgets spending more on 
  net interest payments on the debt than on national defense, and to 
ensure the United States government funds its military at higher levels 
          than the militaries of foreign holders of its debt)

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

     SEC. 4__. SENATE POINT OF ORDER AGAINST BUDGET PROVIDING 
                   OUTLAYS FOR INTEREST ON THE DEBT IN EXCESS OF 
                   OUTLAYS FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE.

       (a) In General.--In the Senate, it shall not be in order to 
     consider a concurrent resolution on the budget for the budget 
     year or any amendment, amendment between Houses, motion, or 
     conference report thereon that includes outlays for function 
     900 in any fiscal year that exceed outlays for function 050 
     in the same fiscal year.
       (b) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal in the Senate.--
       (1) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended in the 
     Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (2) Appeal.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be 
     required in the Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of 
     the Chair on a point of order raised under this section.


                           Amendment No. 693

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 693, offered by the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner.
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in the spirit of what our leader said 
about us trying to move along, I think while we may have a variety of 
views, we all know we are $16.5 trillion in debt--a debt that goes up 
by $3 billion every night. The last thing we should do is dig this hole 
any deeper.
  This amendment is paired actually with an amendment that will be 
offered by the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune. The Thune 
amendment would repeal the estate tax without the ability to offset 
with additional revenue.
  I believe the estate tax is actually a meaningful part of our Tax 
Code. We put in place appropriate exemptions: $5 million a person, $10 
million a couple. That means the estate tax right now only applies to 
about 3,800 people a year. Yet, if we were to repeal the estate tax 
without any offset, that would add $600 billion to our debt.
  We have spent a lot of time over these last number of months talking 
about the dramatic cuts in defense from sequester--$550 billion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues, if we want to repeal 
the estate tax and pay for it, to vote for the Warner amendment No. 
693.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I appreciate the effort being made by the 
Senator from Virginia. He is moving in the right direction. We do need 
to get rid of this once and for all. I would be happy to accept his 
amendment by voice if he would be willing to do that. But I think it is 
important to have a vote on eliminating the death tax.
  The death tax is a punitive tax. It hits farmers and ranchers 
squarely in the face at a time when they are trying to pass on their 
farm or ranch operation to the next generation of Americans.
  By the way, the amendment I will offer is a deficit-neutral reserve 
fund; it would be offset. The point the Senator from Virginia made 
about it not being offset is not accurate.
  The way we would approach this, it would have to be offset, but it is 
time that we put a stake in the heart of the death tax and end it once 
and for all.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I believe we need a balanced approach. The 
notion that we can continue to take away revenue sources is not a 
responsible way to address this budget.
  I urge my colleagues to support amendment No. 693.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 80, nays 19, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 66 Leg.]

                                YEAS--80

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cowan
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kaine
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Schatz
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--19

     Baldwin
     Brown
     Coons
     Durbin
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harkin
     Johnson (SD)
     King
     Levin
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Udall (NM)
     Whitehouse

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The amendment (No. 693) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 307

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

[[Page 4572]]

minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 307, offered by the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune.
  The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, this amendment will create a deficit-
neutral reserve fund to completely--completely--eliminate the Federal 
estate tax burden that is facing America's family farmers and small 
businesses. There are lots of reasons to support elimination of this 
destructive and inefficient tax, but for me the issue comes down to 
being able to tell the farmers and ranchers I represent that I am doing 
everything I can to make sure they can pass on their family farm to the 
next generation without a double tax imposed from Washington, DC.
  Behind me is a chart. This is data selected from the latest 
Agriculture Department report on farmland values. Farmers in the States 
represented on this chart truly are land rich and cash poor. These 
farmers literally have to sell off land or spend large sums in 
financial planning solely because of the estate tax--all of that to 
bring in less than one-half of 1 percent of all Federal revenue.
  Next year the estate tax will generate $15 billion--that is all--
relative to all the harm that it causes to farms, ranches, and small 
businesses in this country. It is time to end this tax. It is time to 
put a stake through the heart of this tax. I ask my colleagues to 
support the repeal with this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time in opposition?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, there are strong feelings of opinion in 
this body about the estate tax. I personally believe the current estate 
tax--with a very generous $5 million-per-person exemption, and $10 
million per family; an estate tax that only applies to 3,800 families 
per year--is a fair part of our Tax Code. Others may disagree.
  But in our previous amendment, Warner amendment No. 693, we said if 
you are going to replace the estate tax, you have to pay for it. The 
unfortunate thing about the Senator's amendment is it says if you 
repeal the estate tax, you cannot use revenues to replace that. It will 
only have to be replaced with additional cuts.
  The problem we have at this point--$16.5 trillion in debt--is because 
we have not recognized to get a budget balanced you have to look at 
both sides of the balance sheet, revenue and spending. You cannot just 
keep taking revenue away on every item. So I would urge my colleagues 
to oppose the Thune amendment.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 67 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--53

     Baldwin
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The amendment (No. 307) was rejected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote and lay that motion on the 
table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 198

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 198 
offered by the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 198.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this amendment would create a deficit-
neutral reserve fund to protect disabled veterans and their survivors, 
which may not include a chained CPI--no chained CPI.
  This amendment is cosponsored by Senators Harkin, Hirono, and 
Whitehouse. This amendment is strongly supported by the American Legion 
and all of the veterans organizations. It is supported by the AARP and 
all of the senior organizations because they do not want to see cuts in 
Social Security. It is supported by the AFL-CIO and the National 
Organization for Women, among many other groups.
  After all of the fine Memorial Day speeches about how much we love 
and support our veterans, the Disabled Veterans of America, the Gold 
Star Wives----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SANDERS. They want to know if we are going to balance the budget 
on the backs of disabled veterans. I hope very much we will not do 
that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Sanders amendment. 
I urge my colleagues to support it. I support chained CPI, just as the 
President, as it relates to entitlement reform. The fact is, if we want 
to protect veterans, then the important amendment is the next one. It 
is the amendment that bans excessive taxes from being applied to our 
country's veterans. It shields them from the massive tax increases 
found in this budget.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I believe we can take this on a voice vote.
  Mr. SANDERS. If Mr. Burr supports this amendment, I ask for a 
rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  At the moment there is not a sufficient second. At this time, there 
is not a sufficient second.
  The question is on the amendment.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask for a voice vote on the Sanders amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Hearing no further debate, the question is on 
agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 198) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 697

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior

[[Page 4573]]

to a vote in relation to amendment No. 697.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment that will 
actually protect veterans, one that will protect them from the massive 
tax increases in this budget. The budget before us today raises $1 
trillion but does not tell us how. My amendment would ensure that the 
Democrats in the Chamber cannot raise a dime of that trillion dollars 
on the backs of our Nation's veterans. It would strike their ability to 
fast-track any tax increases through this body.
  I encourage all Members to vote for the amendment that will actually 
protect veterans from the threat before them. That threat is higher 
taxes that will come from this budget.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I strongly oppose this amendment. 
Repealing this budget's revenue increase and striking reconciliation 
would be irresponsible. Our budget would not raise taxes on veterans.
  I yield back the remainder of my time to the Senator from Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. What this amendment basically says is it does away with 
the revenue that the committee has put into the bill. It says the only 
way to do deficit reduction is to cut, cut, cut--cut Social Security, 
veterans programs, Medicare, Medicaid. One out of four corporations 
does not pay a nickel in taxes today. No problem. We are losing $100 
billion with companies putting their money in the Cayman Island's tax 
havens. No problem. The only way to go forward is to cut, cut, cut. The 
American people do not support that concept. This amendment should be 
defeated.
  Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment is 
not germane to the underlying resolution and therefore violates section 
305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I move to waive section 305(b)(2) of the 
Congressional Budget Act for consideration of the pending amendment No. 
697 pursuant to section 904(c) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 45, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 68 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--54

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 45 and the nays are 
54. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and amendment No. 697 falls.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote and lay that motion on the 
table.
  The motion to reconsider was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 482

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to amendment No. 482, offered 
by the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. This bipartisan amendment, cosponsored by Senator Collins, 
Senator Merkley, and others, would add resources to energy programs for 
the purpose of increasing support for the Weatherization Assistance 
Program. It would also include weatherization in the investments under 
the deficit-neutral reserve fund on clean energy and environmental 
protection.
  Weatherization does several things: It puts people to work, helps 
low-income people control their energy bills, and helps us move toward 
energy independence. We need to do more of this, not less. This 
amendment will put us back on the track of doing more, not less.
  I would urge passage of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator and his cosponsors for their work 
on this amendment. I note it would double the budget number for the 
weatherization program. Also, the Recovery Act of a few years ago, the 
stimulus bill, provided $5 billion for the weatherization program. 
While I am dubious about the wisdom of the doubling of this program, it 
is offset. Therefore, I would accept a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Without objection, we will move to a voice vote on this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 482) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider and lay that motion 
on the table.
  The motion to reconsider was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 263

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided prior to a vote on amendment No. 263 offered by the Senator 
from Kentucky, Mr. Paul.
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, the President is fond of calling for a 
balanced approach. Today, I rise in this body to offer a balanced 
approach to budgets. I offer a budget that balances in 5 years.
  This budget is called the Revitalize America Budget. It reforms and 
saves Social Security and Medicare, making them solvent for 75 years; 
it creates millions of jobs by letting taxpayers keep an additional 
$600 billion of their income; it repeals ObamaCare; and it requires 
Congress to vote to approve or disapprove all major regulations.
  Our ever-expanding debt is costing us millions of jobs a year. It is 
time to stop burying our kids in debt. I suggest a vote for this 5-year 
balanced budget.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the budget resolution before the Senate 
represents the values and priorities of the pro-middle-class agenda. 
The Paul budget that is being offered includes tax savings for the 
wealthy and eliminates the programs that strengthen our economy and 
support our middle class.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.

[[Page 4574]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 18, nays 81, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 69 Leg.]

                                YEAS--18

     Barrasso
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Flake
     Inhofe
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Risch
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Vitter

                                NAYS--81

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The amendment (No. 263) was rejected.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 314

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes equally divided prior 
to a vote on amendment No. 314 offered by the Senator from Louisiana, 
Ms. Landrieu.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am proud to offer this amendment on 
behalf of myself, Senator Chambliss, Senator Vitter, Senator 
Blumenthal, Senator Isakson, Senator Murphy, and Senator Udall of New 
Mexico that will fix a problem in the way CBO is scoring the leasing of 
veterans clinics.
  This amendment, if adopted, will have no impact on the deficit. It 
will allow veterans clinics in 30 States to be able to finance their 
buildings. It is something that must be done in order to solve this 
problem for our veterans, and I think we can take this by voice vote.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I believe Senator Coburn wished to speak 
on this amendment.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I understand what the Senator from 
Louisiana is trying to do, but it goes toward the bigger problems of 
GSA. I will give you a great example.
  In my hometown they are building a brand new U.S. Attorney's Office 
with four other sites that are available that could have been leased, 
and they are going to lease this one as well. So leasing doesn't solve 
the problem. What we need to attack is the inefficiencies and 
ineffectiveness of GSA.
  I am sure we will take a voice vote on this, but I am not sure I 
agree with the solution of the Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. This is only for veterans clinics, and I ask for a 
voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, if there is no discussion, we will take 
this by voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 314) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 247

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 247, offered by 
the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up 
amendment No. 247 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this is an amendment which would 
facilitate passage of legislation that would deny pay to the personnel 
at the Office of Management and Budget for such time as they delay in 
the statutory requirement for the President to submit a budget for 
consideration by the Senate.
  As we all know, the law requires the President to submit a budget the 
first Monday in February, but the President has not done so 4 out of 
the last 5 years, nor will he do so this year reportedly until April. 
The problem with that is we will finish our work here this week, the 
House will finish their work, and the President has rendered himself 
entirely irrelevant.
  We know because the House passed the No Budget No Pay bill that it 
prompted the first budget in the Senate in more than 1,400 days, and 
that is good, that is progress. We would like to do the same now with 
the Office of Management and Budget to encourage the President to be 
relevant to the budget debate and require him to submit his budget on a 
timely basis.
  So I would ask my colleagues for their vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, there is no opposition. We suggest a 
voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 247) was agreed to.


                      Amendment No. 606 Withdrawn

                           Amendment No. 483

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Menendez 
amendment listed in the previous order, amendment No. 606, be replaced 
with Udall amendment No. 483.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Amendment 
No. 606 has been withdrawn.
  The clerk will report amendment No. 483.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] for Mr. Udall of 
     New Mexico, proposes amendment numbered 483.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to 
                hardrock mineral royalty and fee reform)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING HARDROCK 
                   MINING REFORM.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for 1 or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports 
     relating to Federal land management, which may include 
     provisions relating to budget deficit reduction, 
     establishment of a reclamation fund, imposition of a 
     locatable mineral royalty, revenue sharing with States, and 
     improvements to the permitting process, by the amounts 
     provided in the legislation for those purposes, provided that 
     the legislation would not increase the deficit over either 
     the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or 
     the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.


                           Amendment No. 483

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior 
to a vote on amendment No. 483, offered by the Senator from New Mexico, 
Mr. Udall.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, let me just say that I very 
much appreciate the help on this amendment from both Senator Wyden, who 
is here and is the chairman of the committee, and also Senator 
Murkowski, who has been working with me on this amendment.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, if there is no opposition, I would 
suggest a voice vote.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I understand there have been discussions 
about this, and it is on the agreed list for a voice vote. I would have 
no objection unless others do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.

[[Page 4575]]

  The amendment (No. 483) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 689

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior 
to a vote on amendment No. 689, offered by the Senator from Louisiana, 
Mr. Vitter.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 689.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, there have been at least three independent 
studies now recently that underscore that too-big-to-fail is still 
alive and well, and that too-big-to-fail policies give Wall Street 
megabanks a subsidy in comparison to their competitors--an unfair 
advantage, creating an uneven playing field. And not coincidentally, 
that is why these megabanks dominate the market--the biggest market 
share ever in history.
  This amendment is very simple. It says we should do away with the 
Federal policies that create that subsidy, the uneven playing field. It 
doesn't say we forcibly break up the banks, it doesn't say we tax them, 
it just says that.
  I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Brown of Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, we ask support for the Vitter-Brown-Corker-
Pryor amendment. The community banks of America support it because they 
know the playing field isn't level.
  One real quick statistic. Eighteen years ago, the six biggest U.S. 
banks had assets equal to 18 percent of GDP. Today it is 65 percent of 
GDP.
  I ask for your support of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I don't believe there is any opposition 
to this amendment. I would ask the Senator if we could have a voice 
vote on this amendment as well.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, we believe this is an important matter, 
and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  At this moment there is not a sufficient second.
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 70 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cowan
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lee
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The amendment (No. 689) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I 
move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 537

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior 
to a vote in relation to amendment No. 537, offered by Mr. Tester.
  Mr. TESTER. I rise on behalf of amendment No. 537.
  First of all, I thank Senator Coons and Senator Heller for 
cosponsoring this amendment. It would allow the children under the 
Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, otherwise known as CHAMP-VA, to remain eligible for coverage 
until their 26th birthday. These children are the children of veterans 
who have been rated permanently and totally disabled and children of 
veterans who have died from a service-connected disability or service-
connected disease.
  With the enactment of the Affordable Health Care Act, children up to 
26 years of age can now be covered on their parents' health insurance 
if they are unable to receive health insurance from their employers. In 
contrast to private insurance plans, or TRICARE, children under the 
CHAMP-VA program are only eligible for coverage until age 18 or 23 if 
they are a full-time enrolled student. This amendment is offered on 
their behalf to allow them to be on the CHAMP-VA program up to age 26.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama?
  Mr. SESSIONS. This is a budget-neutral reserve fund, and it 
essentially says, using that language, if the authorizing committee can 
pay for this bill, it will not be subject to a budget point of order. 
It should be offset to avoid that. This is certainly a worthy goal. We 
would like to see if this can be done. It would be a challenge for the 
authorizers because nothing comes from nothing. It could well end up 
cutting other veterans benefits. But I think this is a worthy goal. I 
think the Senator would suggest we take it by a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Seeing no opposition, I suggest we take this by a voice 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 537) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I 
move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 535

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior 
to a vote in relation to amendment No. 535, offered by the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Toomey.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 535.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Mr. TOOMEY. As we know, the ObamaCare bill raises taxes by $1.2 
trillion. Much of that is on middle-income families. One in particular 
is a tax increase on people who incur and then deduct catastrophic 
medical expenses.
  Imagine a woman slips and falls at home, is seriously injured, runs 
up huge medical costs which she pays for out her own pocket, and then 
on top of her personal and physical misery ObamaCare hits her with a 
double whammy by reducing the amount of medical expenses she is allowed 
to deduct. Who does this hurt? Disproportionately, middle-income 
taxpayers; 96 percent of these deductions are for people who earn less 
than $200,000. It adds up to $30 billion over 10 years. Madam 
President, 60 percent of these deductions are by senior citizens. The 
fact is the ObamaCare tax increase imposes this tax on people who can 
least afford it, the sick, elderly, middle-income folks.
  My amendment repeals this ill-conceived tax on victims of 
catastrophic illness and repeals the reconciliation instructions in the 
budget.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second.
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.

[[Page 4576]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, again, for our colleagues, the goal of 
our budget is to tackle our deficit and debt responsibly in a way that 
works for our middle-class families and our economy. That means a 
balanced mix of responsible spending cuts and new revenue from those 
who can afford it most.
  I remind all Senators every bipartisan group who has examined our 
budget situation has acknowledged that reality. Simpson-Bowls, the Gang 
of 6, Domenici-Rivlin--all recommend several times more revenue than 
the roughly $600 billion that was generated by the yearend deal. In 
fact, Simpson-Bowles and the Gang of 6 each recommend well over $2 
trillion in new revenue. So striking this reconciliation instruction, 
which is what this amendment does, and reducing the revenue level, goes 
in exactly the wrong direction. I ask for a strong ``no'' vote and 
oppose this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 71 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--54

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The amendment (No. 535) was rejected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and to 
lay the motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 442

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 442, offered by Mr. Casey of Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. I call up amendment No. 442.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Mr. CASEY. This amendment creates a neutral reserve fund that 
supports the Edward Byrne memorial justice assistance grants. It helps 
every one of our States. It has been cut by one-third over the last 2 
years. We provide support for local and State law enforcement. The 
money is used to support innovative, evidence-based approaches to 
public safety--by way of example, special courts that have new 
technological innovations to help reduce and fight crime in our 
communities.
  In part, it is supported by--and this is only a partial list--the 
National Sheriffs' Association, the International Association of Chiefs 
of Police, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the National Narcotics 
Officers' Association.
  I am grateful for the work that was done by so many people on this 
amendment--especially Senator Grassley--and urge for its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I hope all of us begin to think a 
little bit here. We have a lot of votes that have gone forward. Each 
one seems to be an attempt to spend more money. It sets deficit-neutral 
reserve funds that require offsets. In my view, we are really thinking 
too much with a mindset that we have money, and I believe we are in 
denial about the financial condition of our country. Truly, we should 
be looking to have more amendments that save some money and use that 
money to pay down the debt rather than fund some new spending program.
  This country is on an unsustainable debt path. We have to get off of 
it, and it cannot be done all by tax increases. Trust me, we have to 
have some spending reductions. Our spending rate of growth is more than 
two times the rate of economic growth, and that really--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I suggest a voice vote. I appreciate my colleague's 
work on this amendment.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I believe we can take this by a voice 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 442) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form prior to a vote in 
relation to amendment No. 273, offered by the Senator from Maryland, 
Mr. Cardin.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I believe the pending amendment is 
Coats amendment No. 514.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair stands corrected.


                           Amendment No. 514

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes equally divided in the usual form prior to a vote in relation 
to amendment No. 514, offered by Mr. Coats of Indiana.
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 514. It is a 
bipartisan amendment with Senator Manchin. It clarifies that a 
Presidential exemption exists for utilities that despite their good-
faith efforts have been unable to complete the necessary measures to 
comply with the standards of the EPA regarding the mercury toxic 
elements issue. That deadline is 2016.
  This amendment does not repeal or weaken the existing standard, the 
MATS rule. It simply allows powerplants that qualify for a Presidential 
exemption additional time to finish their upgrades and provides much-
needed stability and reliability to the electric grid.
  It is the President's decision, and if he sees that a utility is 
acting in good faith and needs a little more time to complete it to 
meet those standards, he can make that decision to provide that 
additional time.
  It is a bipartisan amendment supported by both sides, and I urge our 
colleagues to vote for this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I strongly oppose this amendment. I 
agree with the Senator from California, and I yield her my time in 
opposition.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, the Coats amendment allows open-ended 
exemptions to the mercury air toxic rule. This is not a 1-year 
extension, it is a permanent extension if any President, now or in the 
future, simply decides it. It doesn't even require any finding.
  Let me tell my colleagues a little bit about mercury. It is 
dangerous. It is poison. It harms the brain, the nervous system, and 
childhood development. It is especially damaging to infants and 
pregnant women. Mercury harms a child's ability to speak, to hear, to 
walk, to see, and to think. Can't we protect our children?

[[Page 4577]]

  I want to give my colleagues 11,000 reasons to oppose the Coats 
amendment. That is how many premature deaths will be avoided with the 
rule he wants to eviscerate. Just last June we held on this rule. Let's 
vote no on the Coats amendment.
  Thank you very much.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 72 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--53

     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cowan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The amendment (No. 514) was rejected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 273

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior 
to a vote in relation to amendment No. 273, offered by the Senator from 
Maryland, Mr. Cardin.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, this amendment would set up a deficit-
neutral reserve fund.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Heinrich be added as a cosponsor 
of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. It would improve the oral health care for our children 
who are Medicaid-eligible. We still have major problems. The majority 
of our children who are Medicaid-eligible have untreated tooth decay, 
which affects their general health.
  Let me respond to my good friend from Alabama, Senator Sessions, and 
tell him why this amendment will not add to the deficit but will save 
us money.
  I will give the example of Deamonte Driver, a 12-year-old who died in 
my State of Maryland from untreated tooth decay. He needed an $80 tooth 
extraction. Instead, we spent $\1/4\ million dollars in unnecessary 
operations and he lost his life.
  This amendment gives us a chance to find ways to save money in order 
to expand oral health for our children, and I urge my colleagues to 
support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank Senator Cardin for his hard 
work. He is correct that oral care for children is important. It does 
require that it be paid for if a new program is advanced.
  I suggest a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, hearing no opposition, I suggest we 
have a voice vote on it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 273) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 373

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 2 
minutes equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 
373, offered by the Senator from Utah, Mr. Lee.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, under this budget, by the year 2020 we will 
be spending more every year on interest on our national debt than we 
spend on our national defense. This is alarming and ought to be a 
concern to every one of us. This amendment creates a point of order 
that would address this problem and all similar problems in the future 
with other budgets that have the same defect.
  While we are on this note, I would like to add that I am concerned 
about the amendment process. I heard from our majority leader a few 
minutes ago a statement suggesting that he might cut off debate, cut 
off the amendment process--this after he promised us at the beginning 
of the week that there would be unlimited amendments. And he repeated 
that phrase twice.
  It is imperative that we finish this job. Each of us was elected to 
do a job. Each of us deserves to have our amendments called up. We have 
no business taking a 2-week vacation until we have gone through every 
amendment that any Senator from either side of the aisle wants to 
present.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I too am committed to meeting the needs 
of our military to defend the Nation and our interests abroad. That is 
exactly what this budget does.
  We should not be linking defense funding with unrelated benchmarks. 
This amendment is unnecessary. The Senate budget does fund defense 
above net interest in fiscal year 2014 and over both the 5- and 10-year 
windows.
  I recommend that my colleagues oppose the amendment.
  Madam President, may I just respond and say that we have been very 
hard at work here. We have had a number of amendments come before us. 
All of our staffs are working together to have as many amendments as we 
can put together for the next group of votes.
  Really, I do want to thank all of our Senators. I know everybody has 
been working really hard to get their amendments up so we can have them 
in order. I think we are going to keep working on that, and I 
appreciate everybody's focus.
  Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenburg) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 73 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake

[[Page 4578]]


     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--53

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The amendment (No. 373) was rejected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, a lot of progress has been made. We are 
doing extremely well. I admire the progress made by the two managers of 
this bill.
  Over the last two decades, after the expiration of debate time on 
those budget resolutions, the Senate has offered and the Senate 
disposed of an average of 35 amendments. Today, since the expiration of 
that debate time on this resolution, we have now disposed of 33 
amendments. We have considered and disposed of 44 amendments on the 
resolution in total, counting those we did yesterday.
  We need to continue working. There are a lot of things that people 
want to have offered. But, you know, there are 400 amendments that have 
already been filed. Senator Byrd, whom we all revere, said, and I will 
quote:

       I once described vote-aramas as pandemonium, which was the 
     Palace of Satan in Milton's Paradise Lost. But that term 
     fails to describe the ignominy of the Senate when it becomes 
     engulfed in these budget vote carnivals.

  So we are doing fine. We are not at the carnival stage yet. Let's 
proceed and try to finish this with a lot of dignity. I again tell 
Senator Murray and Senator Sessions what a good job they have done. We 
need to proceed to see what else we can get done.


                 Amendments Nos. 366, 213, 455, and 597

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the next 
amendments in order to be called up be the following: McCaskill No. 
366, Johnson of Wisconsin No. 213, Brown No. 455, and Scott No. 597; 
that there be no second-degree amendments in order prior to the votes 
in relation to any of these amendments; that notwithstanding all time 
having expired on the resolution, there be 2 minutes equally divided 
prior to each vote; that upon disposition of Scott 597, the majority 
have the next amendment in order; finally, all these votes be 10-minute 
votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendments be reported en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes 
     amendments en bloc: for Mrs. McCaskill, an amendment numbered 
     366; for Mr. Johnson of Wisconsin, an amendment numbered 213; 
     for Mr. Brown, an amendment numbered 455; for Mr. Scott, an 
     amendment numbered 597.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 366

 (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to support the 
transition of servicemembers to the civilian workforce by streamlining 
      the process associated with Federal and State credentialing 
                             requirements)

       On page 60, line 7, insert ``Federal and State'' before 
     ``credentialing''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 213

   (Purpose: To force Congress to ensure the solvency of the Social 
                    Security and Medicare programs)

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

     SEC. ___. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST CONSIDERING BUDGET 
                   RESOLUTIONS THAT ASSUME THE INSOLVENCY OF THE 
                   SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE PROGRAMS.

       (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate 
     to consider a concurrent resolution on the budget for the 
     budget year or any amendment, amendment between Houses, 
     motion, or conference report thereon whose revenue and outlay 
     assumptions do not assume that Social Security and Medicare 
     will be solvent for the seventy-five years following the year 
     in which the budget resolution is considered.
       (b) Waiver and Appeal.--Subsection (a) may be waived or 
     suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-
     fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative 
     vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly 
     chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of 
     the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under 
     subsection (a).


                           AMENDMENT NO. 455

 (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to establish a 
 national network for manufacturing innovation that leverages private 
     and public sector investments for proven United States based 
                       manufacturing industries)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO ESTABLISH A 
                   NATIONAL NETWORK FOR MANUFACTURING INNOVATION.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     motions, or conference reports that relate to accelerating 
     the development and deployment of advanced manufacturing 
     technologies, advancing competitiveness, improving the speed 
     and infrastructure with which small- and medium-sized 
     enterprises and supply chains commercialize new processes and 
     technologies, and informing industry-driven education and 
     training, by the amounts provided in such legislation for 
     those purposes, provided that such legislation would not 
     increase the deficit over either the period of the total of 
     fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the total of 
     fiscal years 2013 through 2023.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 597

 (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to the 
      prohibition of taxpayer dollars and resources being used to 
   automatically deduct union dues from the pay of Federal employees)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO THE 
                   PROHIBITION OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS AND RESOURCES 
                   BEING USED BY FEDERAL AGENCIES TO AUTOMATICALLY 
                   DEDUCT UNION DUES FROM THE PAY OF FEDERAL 
                   EMPLOYEES.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     motions, or conference reports relating to the prohibition of 
     taxpayer dollars and resources being used by Federal agencies 
     to automatically deduct union dues from the pay of Federal 
     employees without raising new revenue, by the amounts 
     provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided 
     that such legislation would not increase the deficit over 
     either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 
     2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 
     2023.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I would add to what the majority leader 
said. Senators have been very good in helping us work through our list 
on both sides. We will have some more amendments to be offered in a 
unanimous consent in a short while once we work through these four.
  Again, I would ask all Senators to please work with the leader on 
your side, Mr. Sessions on the Republican side, and myself. We need to 
know which amendments you have to have votes on so we can start letting 
Senators know where we are going to end up here. I would ask everybody 
to continue cooperating with us. I appreciate everybody who has been 
working so hard.


                           Amendment No. 366

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior 
to a vote in relation to amendment No. 366 offered by the Senator from 
Missouri, Mrs. McCaskill.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, the budget already includes a 
deficit-neutral reserve fund to assist servicemembers and veterans. It 
contains a

[[Page 4579]]

provision supporting the transition of our military to the workforce by 
recognizing the process is too cumbersome for them in terms of 
credentialing requirements and licensing requirements.
  What my amendment does is it clarifies this section to ensure that a 
servicemember's military training, education, and experience shall be 
taken into account for both Federal and State licensing requirements.
  These men and women have performed technical jobs in the most 
difficult circumstances imaginable. We should recognize that and accept 
their service and their experience and their training and allow them to 
be easily credentialed when they return home. It helps them so much in 
the search for jobs.
  I would ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, hearing no opposition, I suggest we 
voice vote this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 366) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 213

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior 
to a vote in relation to amendment No. 213, offered by the Senator from 
Wisconsin, Mr. Johnson.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Madam President, I would call up my 
amendment No. 213.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Madam President, this is a very simple 
amendment. It recognizes I think what most of us recognize; that is, 
the entitlement programs, Social Security and Medicare, are the primary 
drivers of our debt and deficit. So it is a very simple amendment. It 
establishes a budget point of order that any budget resolution that is 
brought forward that does not count or does not prepare for a 75-year 
solvency for both Medicare and Social Security would be considered out 
of order.
  We in the next 20 years will be paying out $5.1 trillion in benefits 
in excess of what we are bringing in in terms of dedicated revenue 
through the payroll tax. The unfunded liabilities of Social Security 
alone are $20.5 trillion. For Medicare the unfunded liability is $42.8 
trillion. Those programs must be reformed so they are saved for future 
generations.
  Again, I would hope everybody would support a budget point of order 
for any budget that does not have a 75-year solvency for Medicare and 
Social Security.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, Social Security and Medicare have 
played a very critical role in providing a foundation of financial 
security and health care for millions upon millions of Americans over 
the decades. Democrats are committed to preserving and protecting them. 
When analyzing the solvency of these programs, it must be over more 
than just a 10-year budget window; we must measure them over a 75-year 
window.
  This amendment, however, does nothing to protect the integrity of the 
Medicare and Social Security trust funds, and it does not do anything 
to improve their solvency. We should have a debate about the solvency 
of these programs but not on the budget resolution.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 74 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--53

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The amendment (No. 213) was rejected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay 
that motion upon the table.
  The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 455

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to amendment No. 455, offered 
by the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I rise and join with Senator Blunt in a 
bipartisan amendment, No. 455, in support of a national network for 
manufacturing innovation.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters from 
the National Association of Manufacturers, Semiconductor Industry 
Association, United Auto Workers, and others.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           National Association of


                                                Manufacturers,

                                                   March 22, 2013.
       Dear Senator: The National Association of Manufacturers 
     (NAM)--the nation's largest industrial trade association--
     appreciates efforts in the Senate this year to advance a 
     budget plan for fiscal year 2014 (S. Con. Res. 8). 
     Manufacturers remain extremely concerned about the impact of 
     the historically-high levels of the federal deficit and the 
     national debt on manufacturing and the overall U.S. economy 
     and believe that we need a budget plan that puts us on a path 
     to reduce the federal debt and deficits, focusing both on 
     real and immediate spending cuts and longer term structural 
     changes to our nation's entitlement programs. In addition to 
     advocating for debt and deficit reduction, the NAM also 
     supports comprehensive tax reform to promote economic growth 
     and U.S. competitiveness.
       Unfortunately, the budget blueprint approved by the Senate 
     Budget Committee on March 15, 2013, does not adequately 
     address needed spending cuts and also would impose roughly $1 
     trillion in job-killing, anti-growth tax increases on the 
     American economy. During the Senate's consideration of the 
     budget plan, we strongly urge you to support the amendments 
     described below that would improve the Senate budget and 
     reject the amendments below that would make the plan even 
     more anti-growth and anti-manufacturing.

            Promoting U.S. Manufacturing and Economic Growth

       NAM members strongly believe that our current tax system 
     discourages economic growth and U.S. competitiveness and that 
     comprehensive, revenue neutral reform of our current system 
     is critical to our nation's economic future. In contrast, tax 
     reform that increases the tax burden on U.S. businesses and 
     individuals will discourage job creation, investment and 
     economic growth. Consequently, we strongly support amendments 
     that would eliminate provisions in S. Con. Res. 8, as 
     approved by the Budget Committee, that call for more than $1 
     trillion in tax increases on American businesses and families 
     and allow Congress to advance pro-

[[Page 4580]]

      growth, revenue-neutral tax reform that would spur job 
     creation and investment. We also support an amendment offered 
     by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) that would require a 
     supermajority of the Senate to increase tax rates on 
     businesses and individuals.
       In addition, it is critically important that tax reform 
     addresses the tax treatment of both corporations and 
     individuals. Thus, Manufacturers oppose an amendment filed by 
     Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) that provides for corporate-only 
     reform. About two-thirds of manufacturers are organized as 
     ``flow throughs'' and pay taxes at individual rates. Any tax 
     reform effort that includes a higher tax burden for these 
     flow through companies would negatively impact their ability 
     to invest in their business and create and retain jobs.
       Manufacturers also have long led the business community in 
     providing quality retirement benefits, including defined 
     benefit and defined contribution plans to their employees. As 
     such, we support amendments offered by Senator Richard Burr 
     (R-NC) that would protect these benefits from being a source 
     of revenue for additional government spending.
       Innovation is the lifeblood of U.S. manufacturing and the 
     NAM strongly supports polices to ensure that manufacturers in 
     the United States are the world's leading innovators. To that 
     end, the NAM strongly supports an amendment filed by Senator 
     Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that would preserve and make permanent the 
     R&D tax credit. A strong, permanent and competitive R&D 
     credit will allow manufacturers in the United States to 
     continue as global leaders in technology and innovation.
       Similarly, NAM strongly supports public-private 
     partnerships that promote manufacturing research efforts 
     focused on base-building technologies and processes. The NAM 
     supports an amendment to the budget blueprint filed by 
     Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Roy Blunt (R-MO) that will 
     accelerate the development of advanced manufacturing 
     technologies without adding to the deficit. This will result 
     in innovative products going to market faster, providing an 
     overall benefit to the U.S. economy.
       NAM also supports an amendment filed by Senator John Thune 
     (R-SD) that will allow for the full and permanent repeal of 
     the estate tax. Many small and medium size manufacturers are 
     family-owned businesses. Planning for and paying estate taxes 
     take away important resources from these important job 
     creators. While NAM supports the reforms of the existing 
     system enacted at the beginning of 2013, our long term goal 
     is full repeal of the estate tax, which is the best solution 
     to protect family-owned businesses from the estate tax.
       Manufacturers however, oppose efforts to increase taxes on 
     U.S. global companies. Current U.S. tax laws make it 
     difficult for U.S. companies with worldwide operations to 
     thrive and compete in the global marketplace. If American 
     companies cannot compete abroad, where 95 percent of the 
     world's consumers are located, the U.S. economy suffers from 
     the loss of both foreign markets and domestic jobs that 
     support foreign operations. In order to make U.S. 
     multinationals more competitive, the NAM supports the 
     adoption of a competitive territorial tax system. In 
     contrast, increasing taxes on U.S. companies with overseas 
     operations will make it even more difficult for them to 
     compete in the world markets while reducing their ability to 
     grow and add jobs in the United States.

                        The Affordable Care Act

       NAM members also support amendments to the budget plan that 
     would improve our current tax system by eliminating job-
     killing taxes on manufacturers. In particular, amendments 
     that would eliminate several tax increases that were included 
     in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Thus, we applaud the Senate 
     for recently approving, a bipartisan amendment offered by 
     Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) that 
     would repeal the current 2.3 percent excise tax on the gross 
     sales of medical devices.
       By increasing the costs of medical devices, the excise 
     tax--which took effect at the beginning of 2013--hurts the 
     device manufacturers and their workers and also stifles the 
     research and innovation that leads to the development of 
     medical products that contribute to the health and well-being 
     of all Americans. The additional costs imposed by the tax 
     make it more difficult for U.S. medical device manufacturers 
     to compete in the global marketplace and threaten U.S. jobs, 
     investment and our nation's leadership in life sciences.
       Manufacturers also support an amendment to repeal the 
     Health Insurance Tax (HIT) included in ACA filed by Senator 
     John Barrasso (R-WY). This new tax--to be levied on health 
     insurance companies beginning in 2014--will have the 
     unintended result of increasing costs for many small 
     manufacturers that provide health care benefits for their 
     employees.
       Recent analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation confirms 
     that this additional cost for insurers will be shifted to 
     consumers in the form of higher premiums for private 
     coverage. Manufacturers will bear a significant burden from 
     this cost shifting. Based on a recent survey, nearly 70 
     percent of NAM's small and medium-size manufacturers buy 
     health insurance in the fully insured marketplace. Moreover, 
     this additional cost for companies will be on top of the 
     nearly 10 percent average health insurance premium increases 
     experienced last year by NAM's small and medium-size members.
       The NAM also supports an amendment offered by Senator Dan 
     Coats (R-IN) that would repeal the 3.8 percent investment 
     income surtax also included in ACA. The investment income 
     surtax, which took effect at the beginning of the year, will 
     discourage savings and investment. When the surtax is added 
     to the recent increases in the top tax rates on investment 
     income, some taxpayers now pay a tax rate of 23.8 percent on 
     capital gains and dividends, up from just 15 percent last 
     year, an increase of over 50 percent. Manufacturers strongly 
     support the repeal of this burdensome tax that would increase 
     the tax on savings and investment and reduce the amount of 
     capital business owners have available to invest in their 
     companies. This tax will ultimately result in the loss of 
     vital funds needed for business operations and job creation 
     and for that reason we support the amendment.
       Beyond the tax area, the NAM also supports amendments that 
     address other shortcomings of the ACA. Specifically, the NAM 
     supports amendments filed by Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) to 
     clarify the definition of a full-time employee, Senator Pat 
     Roberts (R-KS) to protect patients from using data collected 
     as a part of comparative effectiveness to deny coverage under 
     federal programs, and Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) to repeal 
     the employer mandate.

                    Reducing Costs for Manufacturers

       The NAM also supports several amendments that protect 
     manufacturers against new costs and burdens that would result 
     from poorly-crafted proposals to regulate greenhouse gases 
     (GHGs). It is, on average, 20 percent more expensive to 
     manufacture in the U.S. than any of our nine largest trading 
     partners. Placing unilateral restrictions or prices on U.S. 
     GHG emissions, without similar regulations in operation on 
     other major emitting nations, would further disadvantage U.S. 
     manufacturers, costing jobs in the process. For instance, a 
     recent NAM study performed by NERA Economic Consulting found 
     that a carbon tax would impact millions of jobs and result in 
     higher prices for natural gas, electricity, gasoline and 
     other energy commodities. The resulting net negative effect 
     on consumption, investment and jobs would lead to lower 
     federal revenues from taxes on capital and labor. The NAM 
     study concluded that any revenue raised by a carbon tax would 
     be far outweighed by the negative impacts to the overall 
     economy. Thus, the NAM supports an amendment filed by 
     Senators Roy Blunt (R-MO) and John Thune (R-SD) opposing a 
     carbon tax.
       Manufacturers also support an amendment filed by Senator 
     John Barrasso (R-WY) that would protect exports from being 
     blocked by unnecessarily broad environmental reviews under 
     the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Expanding NEPA 
     to consider the environmental impact of the cargo could 
     hamper exports of many products, such as cars, tractors, 
     agricultural products, electronics, toys, steel, chemicals, 
     pumps, air conditioners, elevators and airplanes.
       The NAM also supports amendments that would enhance North 
     American oil and gas production by expanding and accelerating 
     onshore and offshore leasing, as well as an amendment from 
     Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) that would support final 
     approval and construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. 
     Construction of Keystone XL would create tens of thousands of 
     jobs and keep manufacturers competitive by providing access 
     to crude oil from Canada and the Bakken formation in North 
     Dakota and Montana. The states along the pipeline route have 
     signed off and the federal government has found that the 
     project will have no significant environmental impact. The 
     delay and red tape for this project is inexcusable; Keystone 
     XL is shovel-ready and it is time for Washington to get out 
     of the way.
       In addition, an amendment from Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) 
     supported by Manufacturers would encourage diversification of 
     sources of rare earth metals. Rare earths are used in a wide 
     range of applications, from consumer electronics to renewable 
     energy to aerospace and defense. Until very recently, the 
     U.S. imported 100 percent of the rare earths it used; as 
     recently as 2009, 96 percent of this supply came from China. 
     Senator Manchin's amendment, would encourage research into 
     alternative technologies, promotion of recycling, and 
     encouragement of domestic production.

                     U.S. Trade and Competitiveness

       The NAM also supports amendments that will strengthen 
     America's competitiveness in the global economy through trade 
     agreements and export promotion. In particular, the NAM 
     supports amendments offered by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) 
     and Rob Portman (R-OH) to renew trade promotion authority to 
     enable the United States to negotiate and implement trade 
     agreements eliminating barriers to greater access overseas. 
     The NAM also supports amendments offered by Senator Hatch to 
     maintain a strong Office of the United States Trade 
     Representative and to strengthen U.S. government efforts 
     promoting innovation and protecting intellectual property 
     rights worldwide. Similarly, Manufacturers support amendments

[[Page 4581]]

     offered by Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Kay Hagan (D-NC) 
     and Deb Fischer (R-NE) that would make improvements in export 
     promotion programs for small businesses to increase 
     commercial opportunities and support and grow jobs.
       In contrast, the NAM strongly opposes amendments that will 
     undermine manufacturers' ability to access foreign markets. 
     In particular, NAM opposes an amendment offered by Senator 
     Mike Lee (R-UT) to defund the Export-Import Bank, which 
     supported more than $170 billion in exports in 2012. 
     Manufacturers also oppose an amendment offered by Senator Lee 
     to defund efforts to implement the Law of the Sea Convention 
     that is an important framework, which the United States 
     should ratify, to help create greater predictability for 
     offshore resources and operations.

                           Overreach by NLRB

       Manufacturers have long been concerned about the direction 
     of the National Labor Relations Board and recent actions 
     taken by the NLRB have borne out this concern. In particular, 
     manufacturers are troubled by the Board's apparent disregard 
     for the U.S. Appeals Court decision regarding the 
     appointments of Members Block and Griffin. The New Process 
     Steel Supreme Court ruling made it clear that the NLRB cannot 
     make case decisions or promulgate regulations without a 
     properly constituted quorum of at least three members. As 
     such, the NAM supports the amendments by Senators Lamar 
     Alexander (R-TN), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) 
     to limit funds available to the Board.
       In addition, the Board's decision in the Specialty 
     Healthcare case represents the most dramatic change in labor 
     law in over 70 years. The decision sets forth a new standard 
     for determining which group or ``unit'' of employees will 
     vote in the union election. By establishing a new standard, a 
     bargaining unit could now consist of as little as two 
     employees. These ``micro-unions,'' could cripple an 
     employer's ability to manage operations in an effective way, 
     and result in a facilities operating with separate unions for 
     each job category and unnecessarily dividing employees. The 
     NAM support, an amendment filed by Senator Johnny Isakson (R-
     GA) to prevent funding to implement the new ``micro union'' 
     standard established by the Specialty Healthcare decision.

               Addressing Manufacturers' Workforce Needs

       World-class manufacturing demands world-class talent. 
     Today, approximately 600,000 manufacturing jobs go unfilled 
     because of the skills gap. Consequently, NAM members strongly 
     support efforts to develop a more productive and skilled 
     workforce. S.Con.Res. 8, as approved by the Budget Committee, 
     does include provisions for improving workforce development, 
     job training, and other reemployment programs. Manufacturers 
     also support an amendment offered by Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC) 
     that would also ensure that training leading to nationally 
     recognized post-secondary credentials would be included as 
     one of the goals of new legislation. This amendment clearly 
     supports NAM's policy of promoting industry-recognized 
     credentials.

                               Conclusion

       Thank you in advance for considering the views of 
     Manufacturers. Clearly our nation's fiscal challenges are of 
     critical importance not only to the future of American 
     manufacturers, but to the future of all Americans. NAM 
     members firmly believe that it is critically important that 
     any budget blueprint puts the country on a path to address 
     these important issues without raising taxes on manufacturers 
     and other job creators and American families. We look forward 
     to working with you and your colleagues to advance a pro-
     growth, pro-manufacturing budget plan for fiscal 2014 that 
     addresses our nation's fiscal challenges.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Aric Newhouse,
     Senior Vice President.
                                  ____

                                            Semiconductor Industry


                                                  Association,

                                                   March 22, 2013.
     Hon. Sherrod Brown,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Roy Blunt,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Brown and Senator Blunt: I am writing in 
     support of the bipartisan amendment to establish a deficit 
     neutral reserve fund for the National Network for 
     Manufacturing Innovation. This network could bring together 
     industry, universities and community colleges with federal, 
     state and local governments to accelerate manufacturing 
     innovation.
       Public-private institutes to leverage investments in 
     industrially-relevant manufacturing technologies bridge the 
     gap between basic research and product development, provide 
     shared assets to help companies all along the supply chain 
     and can stimulate manufacturing and jobs. Including students 
     from community colleges and training facilities to build a 
     workforce with the advanced manufacturing skills we need.
       We have seen the success of regional hubs in California, 
     Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, and Texas, and we 
     believe this model can be broadened locally and replicated 
     nationally to create manufacturing excellence. Manufacturing 
     is an important sector in our economy, and continued U.S. 
     leadership in advanced manufacturing of semiconductors is in 
     the national interest.
       Given the bipartisan nature of this deficit neutral 
     amendment, we believe it should be accepted by the Senate.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Brian Toohey,
     President & CEO.
                                  ____

         International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & 
           Agricultural Implement Workers of America--UAW,
                                                   March 22, 2013.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the UAW's more than one million 
     active and retired members, I write to strongly urge you to 
     vote in support of the Amendment to S. Con. Res. 8 to be 
     offered by Senators Brown (D-OH) and Blunt (R-MO) when it 
     comes to the floor. The purpose of this amendment is to 
     establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to create a national 
     network for manufacturing innovation. This fund would bring 
     together the best minds from both the private and public 
     sectors. It would create joint public-private institutes that 
     leverage investments to broadly applicable manufacturing 
     technologies for proven manufacturing industries within the 
     United States.
       This type of partnership would help bridge the gap between 
     basic research and product development, and provide assets to 
     particularly help small and medium sized manufacturing 
     businesses access cutting-edge technology and create a 21st 
     century pipeline for the education and training of students 
     and workers in advanced manufacturing skills.
       A strong manufacturing sector is critical for our economy. 
     The resurgence of the domestic auto industry has proven the 
     resiliency of the U.S. manufacturing base, leading the way 
     towards the retention and creation of tens of thousands of 
     good-paying middle class jobs through the worst of the 
     recession. The continued growth and prosperity of 
     manufacturing sectors like the auto industry is directly 
     reliant on a shared public and private commitment to 
     developing the next generation of advanced manufacturing 
     technologies.
       In our global economy, we must invest in the next 
     generation of workers and technologies to ensure we remain a 
     step ahead of our international competitors. Similar programs 
     have already been successfully deployed in other countries. 
     The model offered by this amendment would help fill the gap 
     between U.S. manufacturing innovation and infrastructure and 
     we must not miss the opportunity to make a vital investment 
     in the future of our domestic manufacturing sector. We 
     strongly encourage you to vote in support of the Brown-Blunt 
     amendment when it comes to the floor.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Josh Nassar,
     Legislative Director.
                                  ____

                                               The Association for


                                     Manufacturing Technology,

                                                   March 21, 2013.
     Hon. Sherrod Brown,
     Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Roy Blunt,
     Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Brown and Blunt: On behalf of AMT--The 
     Association For Manufacturing Technology and its over 600 
     member companies, I am writing in support of your efforts to 
     establish a National Network for Manufacturing Innovation 
     (NNMI) by offering an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2014 
     Senate Budget Resolution. I sit on the board of the pilot 
     institute, the National Additive Manufacturing Innovation 
     Institute, located in Youngstown.
       AMT members are the innovators that make modern life 
     possible--from lightning speed communications and efficient 
     transportation to revolutionary medical procedures and new 
     energy exploration. In order to continue to outpace, out-
     innovate and outperform the global competition, these mostly 
     small and medium-sized companies need access to the best 
     research tools and talent available. Public-private 
     collaborations, such as the NNMI, that focus on providing 
     that access and accelerating the pace of manufacturing 
     technology innovation are the best multipliers of government 
     R&D dollars.
       AMT's Manufacturing Mandate urges a three-pronged approach 
     to strengthening manufacturing for economic growth and job 
     creation. First, increase global competitiveness by leveling 
     the playing field for U.S. businesses. Next, build an 
     educated and trained manufacturing workforce that can meet 
     the challenges of today's workplace. AMT calls it the 
     ``Smartforce.'' Finally, support R&D and rapid innovation 
     through collaborative projects like the NNMI.
       Thank you again for your leadership in getting this 
     exciting program off the ground. I am taking the liberty of 
     letting AMT members in Ohio and Missouri know of your support 
     for boosting American manufacturing innovation.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Douglas K. Woods,
                                                        President.

[[Page 4582]]

     
                                  ____
                                    The Ohio State University,

                                                   March 22, 2013.
     Hon. Sherrod Brown,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of The Ohio State University, I 
     write to express my support for your amendment to the FY 2014 
     Senate Budget Resolution to establish a deficit-neutral 
     funding source for the National Network for Manufacturing 
     Innovation (NNMI). I appreciate your continued support of 
     manufacturing in Ohio, and of the University's role as a 
     critical industry partner. The proposed NNMI will address 
     critical needs facing our nation's manufacturing sector and 
     represents a worthwhile and necessary investment by our 
     federal government.
       Manufacturing continues to be a vital sector of our economy 
     and one that must adapt to the evolving structures of 
     industry, workforce, and technology on which it depends. The 
     NNMI targets these needs by bringing together industry, 
     government, and academia to enhance our national 
     competitiveness and economic security. This is especially 
     important to a state like Ohio, which is ranked third in the 
     nation in manufacturing output and workforce, and in which 
     nearly 18% of the state domestic product is impacted by 
     manufacturing.
       As you know, Ohio State's land-grant mission drives our 
     faculty to engage in research that supports industry from 
     discovery to deployment. As a national leader in industry-
     sponsored research, Ohio State recognizes the importance of 
     connecting with those who will help carry scientific 
     discoveries beyond the laboratory, and the NNMI will foster 
     these partnerships across the country. Equally important is 
     our commitment to training and ensuring opportunities for the 
     next generation of manufacturing innovators. The NNMI will 
     strengthen our manufacturing sector to better serve not only 
     today's workforce but tomorrow's as well.
       I recognize that leaders in Washington are making difficult 
     choices regarding the federal budget. I believe this is the 
     right time for establishing a national resource such as the 
     National Network for Manufacturing Innovation. The Ohio State 
     University firmly supports this effort.
           Sincerely,
                                                    E. Gordon Gee,
                                                        President.

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, this amendment--the NNMI--offers one 
commonsense approach by partnering with private industry to bring 
together companies, small businesses, research institutions, and 
community colleges so we can out-innovate the rest of the world.
  I ask for its support and yield the remainder of my time to Senator 
Blunt.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I would just say these entities would 
allow basic research to come together with product development. It 
brings the research elements, the universities, and others together 
with private capital, and even some government agencies, in ways that 
let things happen that wouldn't otherwise.
  I am pleased to join Senator Brown in offering this to the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator in Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I don't believe there is any opposition 
to this amendment and I ask that we take it by a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 455) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. ENZI. I move to lay the motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 597

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is 2 minutes 
of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 
597 offered by the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Scott.
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam President, my amendment is very simple. It prohibits 
the automatic deduction of union dues from Federal employees' 
paychecks.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, the Senator has yielded back his time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. He has.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I would speak in opposition.
  Gains in quality, productivity, and efficiency year after year, in 
department after department, would not have been possible without the 
reasonable and sound use of collective bargaining and worker 
representation. This amendment is just another in a long line of 
attempts to kill public-sector unions--unions that represent and ensure 
quality public service.
  I strongly recommend that my colleagues oppose this amendment, and I 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 75 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--56

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The amendment (No. 597) was rejected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CARDIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


   Amendments Nos. 706, 359, 705, 614, 696, 187, 619, and 152 En Bloc

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the next 
amendments in order to be called up be the following: Cardin No. 706, 
Inhofe No. 359, Menendez No. 705, Sessions No. 614, Merkley No. 696, 
Roberts No. 187, Menendez No. 619, Portman No. 152; that there be no 
second-degree amendments in order prior to the votes in relation to any 
of these amendments; that notwithstanding all time having expired on 
the resolution there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote; 
upon disposition of Portman No. 152, the majority have the next 
amendment in order; all these votes be 10 minutes; and we report them 
en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendments en bloc.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], proposes for Mr. 
     Cardin, amendment

[[Page 4583]]

     numbered 706; for Mr. Inhofe, amendment numbered 359; for Mr. 
     Menendez, amendment numbered 705; for Mr. Sessions, amendment 
     numbered 614; for Mr. Merkley, amendment numbered 696; for 
     Mr. Roberts, amendment numbered 187; for Mr. Menendez, 
     amendment numbered 619; for Mr. Portman, amendment numbered 
     152.

  The amendments are as follows:


                            AMENDMENT NO.706

 (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to ensure that 
  any carbon emissions standards must be cost effective, based on the 
    best available science, and benefit low-income and middle class 
                               families)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO ENSURE 
                   THAT ANY CARBON EMISSIONS STANDARDS MUST BE 
                   COST EFFECTIVE, BASED ON THE BEST AVAILABLE 
                   SCIENCE, AND BENEFIT LOW-INCOME AND MIDDLE 
                   CLASS FAMILIES.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     motions, or conference reports relating to carbon emission 
     standards, that any such standards must be cost effective, 
     based on best available science and benefit low-income and 
     middle class families, by the amounts provided in such 
     legislation for those purposes, provided that such 
     legislation would not increase the deficit over either the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 359

 (Purpose: To reduce spending and decrease the risk of drastic energy 
 price increases by prohibiting further greenhouse gas regulations for 
               the purposes of addressing climate change)

       On page 20, line 19, reduce the amount by $26,000,000.
       On page 20, line 20, reduce the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 20, line 23, reduce the amount by $26,000,000.
       On page 20, line 24, reduce the amount by $22,000,000.
       On page 21, line 2, reduce the amount by $27,000,000.
       On page 21, line 3, reduce the amount by $26,000,000.
       On page 21, line 6, reduce the amount by $27,000,000.
       On page 21, line 7, reduce the amount by $27,000,000.
       On page 21, line 10, reduce the amount by $28,000,000.
       On page 21, line 11, reduce the amount by $27,000,000.
       On page 21, line 14, reduce the amount by $28,000,000.
       On page 21, line 15, reduce the amount by $28,000,000.
       On page 21, line 18, reduce the amount by $29,000,000.
       On page 21, line 19, reduce the amount by $28,000,000.
       On page 21, line 22, reduce the amount by $29,000,000.
       On page 21, line 23, reduce the amount by $29,000,000.
       On page 22, line 2, reduce the amount by $30,000,000.
       On page 22, line 3, reduce the amount by $29,000,000.
       On page 22, line 6, reduce the amount by $30,000,000.
       On page 22, line 7, reduce the amount by $30,000,000.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 705

(Purpose: To address the eligibility criteria for certain undocumented 
 immigrant individuals with respect to certain health insurance plans)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO ADDRESS THE 
                   ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR CERTAIN UNLAWFUL 
                   IMMIGRANT INDIVIDUALS WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN 
                   HEALTH INSURANCE PLANS.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports 
     related to limiting undocumented immigrants from qualifying 
     for federally subsidized health insurance coverage, by the 
     amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes, 
     provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit 
     over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 
     through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 
     through 2023.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 614

  (Purpose: To establish a deficit-reduction reserve fund to achieve 
savings by prohibiting illegal immigrants or illegal immigrants granted 
   legal status from qualifying for federally subsidized health care)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-REDUCTION RESERVE FUND TO ACHIEVE SAVINGS 
                   BY PROHIBITING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS OR ILLEGAL 
                   IMMIGRANTS GRANTED LEGAL STATUS FROM QUALIFYING 
                   FOR FEDERALLY SUBSIDIZED HEALTH CARE.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations of a committee or committees 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     motions, or conference reports that achieve savings in health 
     care that may be related to prohibiting illegal immigrants or 
     aliens who were unlawfully present in the United States prior 
     to receiving a grant of legal immigration status from 
     qualifying for Medicaid or the exchange subsidies established 
     by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 
     111-148; 124 Stat. 119), without raising revenues, provided 
     that such legislation would reduce the deficit over either 
     the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or 
     the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023. 
     The Chairman may also make adjustments to the Senate's pay-
     as-you-go ledger over 5 and 10 years to ensure that the 
     deficit reduction achieved is used for deficit reduction 
     only. The adjustments authorized under this section shall be 
     the amount of deficit reduction achieved.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 696

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to facilitate the 
criminal prosecutions of financial institutions operating in the United 
                      States, regardless of size)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO ENSURE NO FINANCIAL 
                   INSTITUTION IS ABOVE THE LAW REGARDLESS OF 
                   SIZE.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports 
     relating to criminal liability of a financial institution 
     operating in the United States, which may include measures to 
     address the criminal prosecution of a large financial 
     institution operating in the United States or executives of a 
     large financial institution operating in the United States, 
     including for wrongdoing relating to money laundering or 
     violation of sanctions laws, by the amounts provided in such 
     legislation for those purposes, provided that such 
     legislation would not increase the deficit over either the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 187

  (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for promotional or marketing 
 materials promoting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or 
                             its benefits)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO PROHIBIT MARKETING 
                   MATERIALS RELATING TO THE PATIENT PROTECTION 
                   AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the budget authority and outlay allocations of a 
     committee or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for one or more bills, joint 
     resolutions, amendments, amendments between houses, motions, 
     or conference reports that prohibit the use of funds for 
     promotional or marketing materials promoting the Patient 
     Protection and Affordable Care Act or its benefits, provided 
     that such legislation would not increase the deficit or 
     revenues over either the period of the total of fiscal years 
     2013 through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 
     2013 through 2023.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 619

   (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to 
  helping homeowners and small businesses mitigate against flood loss)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO HELPING 
                   HOMEOWNERS AND SMALL BUSINESSES MITIGATE 
                   AGAINST FLOOD LOSS.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports 
     relating to providing better coordination among flood 
     mitigation programs to meet the unmet mitigation needs of 
     homeowners and small businesses, by the amounts provided in 
     such legislation for those purposes, provided that such 
     legislation would not increase the deficit over either the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 152

(Purpose: To provide reconciliation instructions to reduce the deficit 
  by $63,860,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2014 through 2023)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REFORM.

       (a) Modification of Functional Levels.--
       (1) Function 920.--The levels for function 920 in this 
     resolution are amended by--

[[Page 4584]]

       (A) reducing the budget authority for each fiscal year by--
       (i) $100,000,000 in fiscal year 2014;
       (ii) $880,000,000 in fiscal year 2015;
       (iii) $3,070,000,000 in fiscal year 2016;
       (iv) $5,240,000,000 in fiscal year 2017;
       (v) $6,510,000,000 in fiscal year 2018;
       (vi) $6,980,000,000 in fiscal year 2019;
       (vii) $7,450,000,000 in fiscal year 2020;
       (viii) $8,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2021;
       (ix) $8,570,000,000 in fiscal year 2022; and
       (x) $9,160,000,000 in fiscal year 2023; and
       (B) reducing the outlays for each fiscal year by--
       (i) $100,000,000 in fiscal year 2014;
       (ii) $880,000,000 in fiscal year 2015;
       (iii) $3,070,000,000 in fiscal year 2016;
       (iv) $5,240,000,000 in fiscal year 2017;
       (v) $6,510,000,000 in fiscal year 2018;
       (vi) $6,980,000,000 in fiscal year 2019;
       (vii) $7,450,000,000 in fiscal year 2020;
       (viii) $8,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2021;
       (ix) $8,570,000,000 in fiscal year 2022;
       (x) $9,160,000,000 in fiscal year 2023.
       (2) Federal revenues.--The levels for Federal revenues in 
     this resolution are amended by increasing the level for each 
     fiscal year by--
       (A) $10,000,000 in fiscal year 2014;
       (B) $90,000,000 in fiscal year 2015;
       (C) $350,000,000 in fiscal year 2016;
       (D) $640,000,000 in fiscal year 2017;
       (E) $730,000,000 in fiscal year 2018;
       (F) $1,010,000,000 in fiscal year 2019;
       (G) $1,160,000,000 in fiscal year 2020;
       (H) $1,230,000,000 in fiscal year 2021;
       (I) $1,300,000,000 in fiscal year 2022; and
       (J) $1,380,000,000 in fiscal year 2023.
       (b) Reconciliation.--Not later than October 1, 2013, the 
     Committee on Judiciary shall report changes in laws, bills, 
     or resolutions within its jurisdiction to reduce the deficit 
     by $110,000,000 in fiscal year 2014 and $63,860,000,000 for 
     the period of fiscal years 2014 through 2023.


                           Amendment No. 706

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior 
to a vote in relation to amendment No. 706, offered by the Senator from 
Maryland, Mr. Cardin.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, we have two amendments that are going to 
be considered, one I am offering, one Senator Inhofe is offering.
  Senator Inhofe's amendment is a rather extreme amendment. It cuts the 
funds to the Environmental Protection Agency and basically prohibits 
them from regulating carbon emissions. I would hope most of us would 
consider that a rather extreme position to take, to prevent the 
Environmental Protection Agency from protecting the environment.
  My amendment is an amendment that says the carbon emissions standards 
must be cost-effective--and we all agree they should be cost-
effective--it should be based upon best-available science and benefit 
low-income and middle-class families. I would hope we can all agree on 
the amendment I would offer, and I would hope we would do that and 
allow the Environmental Protection Agency to carry out its critical 
mission on behalf of the people of this country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I wish to ask one question of the 
author. First of all, this does not authorize the EPA to regulate in 
any way. This sets the standards. Is that correct?
  Mr. CARDIN. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I support this amendment. I suggest we 
voice vote it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 706) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 359

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior 
to a vote in relation to the amendment numbered 359, offered by Mr. 
Inhofe of Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, people at home are going out of business 
every day--I think everybody knows that--from the overregulation that 
is out there. A lot of people talk about the problem with the taxes. I 
contend that the imposition of these regulations is even worse than the 
taxes. And this regulation does one thing: It stops the EPA from having 
the jurisdiction over the regulation of carbon.
  Madam President, I retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, Senator Inhofe's amendment will cut 
money from the Environmental Protection Agency that has already gone 
through, I think, three rounds of cuts from sequestration, and then 
prevents it from carrying out its mission to regulate our environment.
  It is a very extreme approach. We have already approved the Cardin 
amendment that establishes the right standards for regulating carbon 
emissions.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the Inhofe amendment, and I reserve 
the remainder of my time.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, did I have 30 seconds?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct, he has 30 seconds.
  Mr. INHOFE. They have been trying to regulate carbon now 
legislatively for 10 years and have been unable to do it. I actually 
had a bill up where we got 50 votes, but it took a 60-vote threshold to 
make it happen. So we know the votes are here and the people are 
concerned about the regulation.
  I would only leave you with a quote from Dr. Richard Lindzen from 
MIT, who said that regulating carbon is the bureaucrat's dream. ``If 
you regulate carbon, you regulate life.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. INHOFE. I suggest you vote in favor of this amendment.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, has all time been used on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Murray has 30 seconds.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield to the Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, let me point out that the framework that 
is set up to protect our health has to be based upon best science, it 
has to protect low-income and middle-income families, and it has to be 
done in a cost-effective way. That should be our mission, and that is 
what we have already approved.
  I would urge us to reject the Inhofe amendment.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I think I had 5 seconds remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 76 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Landrieu
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--52

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Levin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz

[[Page 4585]]


     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The amendment (No. 359) was rejected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 705

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is now 2 minutes equally 
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 705, offered by 
the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, is my amendment called up, No. 705?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment is pending.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, this side-by-side with Senator Sessions 
is very straightforward. It restates current law. Let me repeat that. 
It restates current law, which already explicitly excludes undocumented 
immigrants who are in this country from obtaining benefits such as tax 
credits and cost-sharing subsidies when obtaining health insurance 
coverage.
  We debated this policy at length during health care reform, and this 
exemption was included in the final bill to address concerns of some of 
our Republican colleagues that undocumented immigrants would somehow be 
able to receive the benefits we included in the law. That is why we 
specifically and explicitly excluded them from being able to gain this 
type of coverage.
  Finally, addressing the issues of immigrant families is currently 
being done in a bipartisan fashion. The last thing we need to do in 
this budget process is to try to muck that up.
  This is not a great way to do your outreach to the Hispanic and 
immigrant community. I urge our colleagues just to stay with present 
law. Let's restate it once again, support our amendment, and reject the 
Sessions amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I agree that the Senator's amendment 
restates current law. I have no objection to that. I would accept that. 
But the question is and what has been suggested in the paper from what 
I have seen is that if a person is in our country illegally and they 
are rewarded with some legal status, do they then immediately become 
eligible for Federal health care benefits? It is a different situation 
than somebody who came legally and has legal status.
  So I would say I would accept a voice vote on this.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. SESSIONS. My amendment will deal with the next question.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I believe there is no opposition. If we 
could take a voice vote on this?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any further debate? Hearing none, the 
question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 705) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 614

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There now is 2 minutes equally 
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 614, offered by 
the Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, under current law, if a person is here 
unlawfully and becomes ``lawfulized,'' in some fashion, they then 
become qualified for this program. That is what we are talking about. 
So the question is, Should they then become qualified for ObamaCare or 
Medicaid? I think the answer is no. I think that is what people have 
said they believe.
  My amendment would simply say that if you are here illegally, did not 
enter legally, and you get a lawful status in the United States, you 
then do not qualify for the Federal programs of ObamaCare and Medicaid.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield time to the Senator from New 
Jersey.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, nothing changes present law, and nothing 
is contemplated to change--which I think the Group of 8 wouldn't mind 
me saying--what the Senator is concerned about in our negotiations. It 
would have to come before this body before, in fact, it could be 
changed.
  The current law is very clear. They do not have access to any of the 
benefits that the Senator is worried about because present law 
prohibits an undocumented immigrant from having access to those 
benefits. That is why this is unnecessary. It is just the need of some 
to have an immigration amendment.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 77 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--56

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The amendment (No. 614) was rejected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 696

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is now 2 minutes equally 
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 696, offered by 
the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Merkley.
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, under the American system of justice 
where Lady Justice is blindfolded, there should never be a prosecution-
free zone. But that is what the Department of Justice announced there 
is on Tuesday, December 11 of last year. They said they would fine but 
they would not indict and they would not prosecute Hongkong and 
Shanghai Banking Corporation for laundering $800 million in illicit 
drug money; for laundering $600 million in transactions that violated 
U.S. sanctions against Iran, Sudan, Cuba, and other countries against 
American law; and for allowing $200 trillion to bypass the sanctions 
and money-laundering filters.
  As the New York Times reported, the Department of Justice decided not 
to indict HSBC ``over concerns that criminal charges could jeopardize 
one of the world's largest banks, ultimately destabilizing the global 
financial system.'' Our Attorney General repeated this justification on 
March 6, 2013, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, saying: I am 
concerned that the size of

[[Page 4586]]

some of these institutions becomes so large, it does become difficult 
to prosecute them.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator has 
expired.
  Mr. MERKLEY. I ask unanimous consent for 20 more seconds.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, is there opposition?
  Mr. SESSIONS. How much time?
  Mr. MERKLEY. I ask for 20 seconds.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Twenty seconds.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Thank you.
  Too-big-to-jail is wrong under our Constitution. It promises equality 
under the law. Let's send a strong message by supporting this.
  I thank my Republican sponsors, Senators Grassley, Heller, Cornyn, 
and Shelby; and Democrats Tester, Warren, Begich, and Levin; and our 
Independent Senators, Sanders and King.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, there may be someone else here, but I 
have prosecuted banks before and big institutions and put some people 
in jail. But we have--this is serious. I don't think the deficit 
reserve fund is the way to go about it, frankly, but it is an issue 
worthy of discussion. It should be brought up in the authorizing 
committee--the Judiciary Committee--and considered. And I am very 
inclined to believe we have had too little prosecution in these cases. 
But I think the right thing to do is to take this by voice vote. People 
can decide how they want to vote on it.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I believe there is no opposition. We can 
take it by a voice vote. Senator Merkley has asked for a loud vote.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 696) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 187

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is now 2 minutes of debate 
divided equally on amendment No. 187.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, this amendment would prohibit funds for 
promotional and marketing materials that promote the affordable health 
care act and its benefits at taxpayer expense.
  According to HHS's own documents obtained by the House Ways and Means 
Committee, which issued the subpoena last year, HHS spent almost $52 
million in behalf of the affordable health care act public relations 
work using outside contractors. That is just not right. When the media 
is reporting more and more problems, more costs, more regulations, more 
lost jobs, higher premiums, this is a gratuitous use of taxpayer 
dollars. It sets a very bad precedent for the Department of Health and 
Human Services stretching the truth, at best, at public expense.
  This administration should not be using American taxpayer dollars to 
fund marketing and promotional campaigns promoting a law and 
regulations that a majority of Americans oppose.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield to the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this ought to be known as the Harry Potter 
invisibility cloak amendment.
  Anyone who has read ``Harry Potter'' knows he had this invisibility 
cloak he put over himself and people couldn't see him. They have tried 
36 separate times to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. They can't do 
that, so now they want to put an invisibility cloak over it.
  The Roberts amendment says we can't tell people, for example, that 
their kids can stay on their policy until they are 26; we can't tell 
people that now they can get coverage even though they have a 
preexisting condition; we can't tell people they can go on the exchange 
starting this October, where they can get good health care.
  Let's vote down the Harry Potter invisibility cloak amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. ROBERTS. No, I accept it on a voice vote. Harry Potter accepts it 
on a voice vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 187) was rejected.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas will state 
his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I respectfully ask the Parliamentarian if the official 
Senate decibel meter indicates that the ruling by the distinguished 
Parliamentarian that the count--or that the vote was not accurate on 
the last vote.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, the 
noes had it.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Perhaps a hearing problem.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 619

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 2 minutes equally divided 
prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 619, offered by the 
Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, this amendment would allow for better 
coordination of our flood mitigation programs to meet the unmet needs 
of victims of disaster.
  As homeowners along the Jersey Shore seek to recover from Superstorm 
Sandy, they are not just faced with the task of rebuilding, they also 
have to comply with new, incredibly costly elevation requirements. 
Seniors who have lived in their modest homes their entire lives now 
face tens of thousands of dollars in unanticipated costs, all in 
addition to the costs of rebuilding. And while there are Federal 
programs available to help coordination among these programs, it is 
incredibly poor and leads to a lot of victims never being helped. For 
example, there are hazard mitigation grants available, but homeowners 
will lose eligibility if they begin work before their application was 
approved, even if they complied with every other rule and regulation.
  My amendment would allow coordination and fine tuning of these 
mitigation programs so they operate more effectively and meet the unmet 
needs of disaster victims. The amendment would not cost any money, nor 
would it add another penny to the deficit. It just encourages the use 
of current programs in a more wise and coordinated fashion.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I think we can accept this by a voice vote.
  I would note that the House has nonreserved funds. The Senate now has 
about 50 we have adopted already. We have reserve funds adopted for 
education, clean energy, infrastructure, farm payments, food stamps, 
health care, pensions, housing, tooth decay, and now homeowners. So 
these create 50 ways to pass taxes more easily. It turns the budget 
discipline, if we don't watch it, into mush and makes it difficult to 
maintain the integrity of the Budget Act and avoids really in some ways 
the hard work of setting priorities.
  So I think we should do this by voice vote, but I did want to call 
the attention of my colleagues to the fact that reserve funds too 
readily used can undermine the integrity of the budget process.

[[Page 4587]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there any further debate?
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 619) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 152

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is now 2 minutes equally 
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 152 offered by the 
Senator from Ohio, Mr. Portman.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, this is an amendment that actually saves 
some money. It is an amendment that instructs the Judiciary Committee 
to produce savings of over $60 billion by cutting back on frivolous 
lawsuits through medical malpractice reform.
  Today, patients and physicians alike are held hostage by a broken 
medical liability system that continues to incentivize defensive 
medicine, which leads to a lot of wasteful spending and unnecessary 
tests and studies. PricewaterhouseCoopers has released a study showing 
that the estimated cost of this defensive medicine is about $210 
billion a year.
  Comprehensive medical malpractice reform has been proposed by 
Simpson-Bowles, by Rivlin-Domenici, and by other bipartisan deficit-
reduction groups. It has also been examined in depth as a means for 
deficit reduction by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. In 
fact, CBO has told us that sensible medical malpractice reform could 
reduce the deficit by over $62 billion over 10 years. CBO also points 
out that comprehensive reform could alleviate shortages of certain 
kinds of physicians around the country.
  The amendment provides maximum flexibility for the Judiciary 
Committee in allowing the committee to determine the best way to 
achieve deficit reduction by reforming the current system. This 
flexibility, by the way, includes the ability to enact reforms that 
would only come into effect if States fail to act.
  ObamaCare has not only led to rising insurance premiums and loss of 
employer-sponsored coverage, but it has also missed this crucial 
opportunity to reduce costs while maintaining access to critical 
specialty care.
  So let's set this reform in motion today as part of this budget 
process.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment. Malpractice 
premiums and claims and claim payouts have all gone down in recent 
years, partly as a result of steps many of our States have already 
taken. Caps on noneconomic damages limit compensation for such harms as 
loss of fertility or severe disfigurement or loss of mobility or loss 
of a spouse or a child. Damage caps do not affect frivolous lawsuits 
but, rather, impact the victims who have been seriously injured and who 
would win in court.
  Tort reform can create enormous risks and costs. Immunizing health 
care providers against accountability for their mistakes risks 
increasing the number of preventable medical errors.
  So this proposal would cut losses for insurers by curbing our 
patients' right to sue, but there is no requirement in these proposals 
for insurers to pass on any savings to the doctors who pay their 
premiums.
  So I recommend a ``no'' vote on this amendment and ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 78 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--56

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coburn
     Coons
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lee
     Levin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The amendment (No. 152) was rejected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, we 
have had very good cooperation. We are working this list down. I have 
another unanimous consent request. I believe most of these will go by 
voice vote, and I appreciate everybody's cooperation.


        Amendments Nos. 624, 295, 232, 538, 412, and 340 En Bloc

  I ask unanimous consent that the next amendments in order to be 
called up be the following: Johanns No. 624, Corker No. 295, Burr No. 
232, Wicker No. 538, Coburn No. 412, and Shelby No. 340; that there be 
no second-degree amendments in order prior to the votes in relation to 
any of these amendments; that notwithstanding all time having expired 
on the resolution, there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each 
vote and that all the votes be 10-minute votes; that upon disposition 
of the Shelby amendment No. 340, the next amendment in order be an 
amendment from the majority; and I ask unanimous consent they be 
reported en bloc.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendments en bloc.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes 
     amendments en bloc: for Mr. Johanns, amendment numbered 624; 
     for Mr. Corker, amendment numbered 295; for Mr. Burr, 
     amendment numbered 232; for Mr. Wicker, amendment numbered 
     538; for Mr. Coburn, amendment numbered 412; for Mr. Shelby, 
     amendment numbered 340.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 624

   (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to restore 
 families' health care flexibility by repealing the $2,500 federal cap 
  on flexible spending accounts and the requirement that individuals 
   obtain a prescription from a physician before purchasing over-the-
   counter drugs with their own flexible spending account or health 
  savings account dollars in order to safeguard families' capacity to 
  plan ahead for the rising cost of care, make their own health care 
   decisions, and ensure children who have special needs can receive 
                             adequate care)

       At the appropriate place insert the following:

     SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO RESTORE FAMILY 
                   HEALTH CARE FLEXIBILITY BY REPEALING THE HEALTH 
                   SAVINGS ACCOUNT AND FLEXIBLE SPENDING ACCOUNT 
                   RESTRICTIONS IN THE HEALTH CARE LAW

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     amendments between houses, motions, or conference reports 
     that restore

[[Page 4588]]

     families' health care flexibility, which may include 
     repealing tax increases on tax-advantaged accounts in the 
     Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-
     148; Stat. 119), without raising revenue, by the amounts 
     provided in such legislation for that purpose, provided that 
     such legislation would not increase the deficit over either 
     the period of the total of fiscal years 2014 through 2018 or 
     the period of the total of fiscal years 2014 through 2023.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 295

  (Purpose: To end a scoring gimmick that allows changes in mandatory 
 program spending that do not save money to offset increased spending)

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

     SEC. ___. BUDGET SCORING RULE RELATING TO CERTAIN CHANGES IN 
                   MANDATORY PROGRAM SPENDING.

       In the Senate, a bill, resolution, amendment, motion or 
     conference report that includes a provision that reduces 
     direct spending that would have been estimated as affecting 
     direct spending or receipts under section 252 of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 shall not be 
     scored by the Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget 
     as new negative budget authority if such provision does not 
     result in net outlay savings over the total of the period of 
     the current year, the budget year, and all fiscal years 
     covered under the most recently adopted concurrent resolution 
     on the budget.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 232

 (Purpose: To protect the American people and strengthen our national 
    security by fully funding the Biomedical Advanced Research and 
 Development Authority (BARDA) and the BioShield Special Reserve Fund)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR BARDA AND THE 
                   BIOSHIELD SPECIAL RESERVE FUND.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     motions, or conference reports that may provide for full 
     funding for the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development 
     Authority under section 319L of the Public Health Serve Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 247d-7e) and the Special Reserve Fund under 
     Section 319-F2 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     247d-6b) without raising new revenue by the amounts provided 
     in such authorizing legislation for those purposes, provided 
     that such legislation does not increase the deficit over 
     either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 
     2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 
     2023.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 538

  (Purpose: To increase the vote threshold required to waive a budget 
    point of order prohibiting unfunded mandates in excess of limit)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SUPERMAJORITY ENFORCEMENT.

       Section 425(a)(1) and (2) of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974 shall be subject to the waiver and appeal 
     requirements of subsections (c)(2) and (d)(3) of section 904 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 412

(Purpose: To create a deficit-reduction reserve fund that addresses the 
 nonprofit postal discount for State and national political committees)

       At the appropriate place, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-REDUCTION RESERVE FUND FOR POSTAL REFORM.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     motions, or conference reports related to the United States 
     Postal Service, which may include measures addressing the 
     nonprofit postal discount for State and national political 
     committees and use such savings to reduce the deficit. The 
     Chairman may also make adjustments to the Senate's pay-as-
     you-go ledger over 6 and 11 years to ensure that the deficit 
     reduction achieved is used for deficit reduction only. The 
     adjustments authorized under this section shall be of the 
     amount of deficit reduction achieved.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 340

 (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund for legislation 
  that requires financial regulators to conduct rigorous cost-benefit 
                    analyses on all proposed rules)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO REQUIRE FINANCIAL 
                   REGULATORS TO CONDUCT RIGOROUS COST-BENEFIT 
                   ANALYSES ON ALL PROPOSED RULES.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports 
     that relate to the finalization of rules with positive cost-
     benefit analyses promulgated by a financial regulator, 
     including the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
     System, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, the 
     Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Federal Deposit 
     Insurance Corporation, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, 
     the Financial Stability Oversight Council, the Office of the 
     Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Financial 
     Research, the National Credit Union Administration, and the 
     Securities and Exchange Commission, by the amounts provided 
     in such legislation for that purpose, provided that such 
     legislation would not increase the deficit over either the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.


                           Amendment No. 624

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is now 2 minutes equally 
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 624, offered by 
the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Johanns.
  The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, this amendment restores a family's 
ability to plan ahead for health care costs and afford care. It 
eliminates a cap on flexible spending accounts.
  It also eliminates the silly requirement that Americans get a 
doctor's prescription to purchase over-the-counter medications with 
their FSA or health savings account.
  In addition, the health savings account can be used for people who 
have disabilities, so this eliminates the possibility of doing that 
beyond the cap.
  I ask my colleagues to support me in eliminating the cap and 
eliminating this crazy requirement about getting a doctor's 
prescription to use a common medication.
  It is supported by the National Downs Syndrome Society, the National 
Center for Learning Disabilities, and the Chamber of Commerce. I urge 
my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have looked at this amendment. I do 
have some concerns about the implementation, but I think we can work 
them out. I would be willing to accept this on a voice vote.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 624) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                      Amendment No. 295 Withdrawn

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is now 2 minutes equally 
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 295 offered by the 
Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Corker.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, we saw during this last CR that there is a 
process called ChIMPS where you can take money out of mandatory 
spending temporarily and spend more in discretionary spending, which 
over the last 2 years has allowed us to spend $35 billion more than the 
Budget Control Act allowed. Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby both 
agree that there is a problem here. They have agreed to try to work 
toward a solution to keep this gimmick from being used in the future. I 
will say that this came over from the House this way. It is not 
something that originated here in the Senate. But because they have 
agreed to work toward a solution, I withdraw my amendment and thank 
them for their cooperation.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from 
Tennessee first for consulting with Senator Shelby and me. You are 
exactly right, he has identified a problem. We are concerned. I promise 
the Senator we will definitely work with him. I appreciate the Senator 
withdrawing the amendment. I am going to say publicly in front of my 
colleagues, we will definitely work with the Senator.


                           Amendment No. 232

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is now 2 minutes equally 
divided prior to a vote in relation to

[[Page 4589]]

amendment No. 232 offered by the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Shelby.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I believe that the next amendment in 
order is the Burr amendment No. 232.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
  The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, very quickly, the purpose of my amendment is 
very simple. It is to protect the American people and strengthen our 
national security by fully funding the Biomedical Advanced Research and 
Development Authority and the BioShield Reserve Fund. BARDA and 
Bioshield are critical components of our Nation's medical 
countermeasure enterprise. Today these programs ensure that we have the 
countermeasures necessary to protect the American people against the 
full range of chemical, biologic, radiological, and nuclear threats 
whether natural or the result of manmade attacks. After 9/11 Congress 
established Bioshield to encourage the development of these 
countermeasures. Supporting BARDA and Bioshield at their authorized 
levels is a matter of national security and should be a priority.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am speaking for my counterpart. This is 
another deficit-neutral fund, which I know Senator Sessions has been 
expressing his concern about all evening. I am delighted to accept this 
amendment on a voice vote.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there is no further debate, the 
question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 232) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 538

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is now 2 minutes equally 
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 538 offered by the 
Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Wicker.
  Mr. WICKER. This amendment simply puts us back where we were several 
years ago, at a 60-vote point of order for unfunded mandates. 
Washington should not use extensive unfunded mandates to shove the 
weight of irresponsible government growth down to State and local 
governments. The threshold now is 51 votes to wave a point of order on 
unfunded mandates. This amendment would simply put it back the way it 
used to be in the law to 60 votes.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I think this amendment is unnecessary. We 
already have proper points of order. I will not hold it up. I will not 
oppose it if you want to do a voice vote.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there any further debate?
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The noes appear to have it.
  Mr. WICKER. Division. Mr. President, the Chair accepted the 
amendment. If we are going to start enforcing this, I will marshal my 
forces and we will learn to yell louder. But the Chair accepted my 
amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I believe that the voice vote was a 
``yes'' vote. I would ask my colleagues if we can redo the vote so we 
can hear it.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 538) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 412

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is now 2 minutes prior to a 
vote in relation to amendment No. 412 offered by the Senator from 
Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this is a simple vote. The Postal Service 
lost $15.8 billion last year. Political parties contributed to that 
loss by our getting a discount on all of our mail. All this will do is 
put us at the same rate as everybody else commercially in terms of the 
mailing. It is probably about $50- to $60 million if we pass this 
amendment that we will increase the revenue to the Postal Service.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I will not oppose this amendment. I am 
delighted to see another deficit-neutral reserve fund put into place on 
this bill that I know my colleagues on the other side of this aisle 
have not been very happy about throughout the process. But in the 
spirit of good will, I am happy to accept this amendment on a voice 
vote.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 412) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 340

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is now 2 minutes equally 
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 340 offered by the 
Senator from Alabama, Mr. Shelby.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, this amendment would create a deficit-
neutral reserve fund for legislation that requires financial regulators 
to perform rigorous cost-benefit analysis of their proposals. If this 
analysis determines that a proposed rule's cost exceeds its benefits, 
the rule should not be implemented. Given the far-reaching scope many 
new financial rules will have on our markets, I believe it is 
imperative that regulators conduct thorough cost-benefit analysis to 
fully understand how these rules will affect our economy.
  Independent final regulators operate under a patchwork of Federal 
laws that require varying degrees of economic analysis and provide too 
much discretion to regulators. As a result, American job creators are 
under siege from capricious rulemaking activities. Regulations should 
be based on solid evidence and supported by robust economic analysis, 
not the arbitrary preferences of bureaucrats.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield my time to the Senator from South 
Dakota.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, I rise in strong 
opposition to amendment No. 340. The amendment is another attempt to 
block Wall Street reform. This amendment would slow down rulemaking and 
invite Wall Street to bring lawsuits against their financial 
regulators.
  GAO recently found that the recent financial crisis may have cost us 
over $13 trillion. We should not hamstring the cops on the beat as they 
try to prevent another crisis. Efforts to undermine sensible 
regulations are opposed by many organizations, including AARP, CFA, and 
the AFL-CIO. I oppose this amendment and I urge my colleagues to do so 
as well.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I join my colleague in opposing this 
amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:

[[Page 4590]]



                      [Rollcall Vote No. 79 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     King
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--52

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The amendment (No. 340) was rejected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


        Amendments Nos. 225, 329, 293, 527, 153, and 136 En Bloc

  Mrs. MURRAY. I have another group of amendments for which I will ask 
unanimous consent.
  I ask unanimous consent the next amendments in order to be called up 
will be the following: Flake amendment No. 225, Graham amendment No. 
329, Heller amendment No. 293, Boozman amendment No. 527, Portman 
amendment No. 153, and Ayotte amendment No. 136; that there be no 
second-degree amendments in order prior to the votes in relation to any 
of these amendments, but notwithstanding all time having expired on the 
resolution, there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote, and 
that all votes be 10-minute votes; that upon the disposition of Ayotte 
amendment No. 136, the next amendment be an amendment from the 
majority.
  I ask the amendments be called up en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEE. I would ask the chairperson of the Budget Committee how many 
more traunches there might be.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I would answer the Senator, we are working through 
between the majority and minority as fast as we can. I don't think 
anybody here will say I have not been working very hard to get up their 
amendment.
  We are doing our best to get everybody considered from both sides. If 
we keep going, I am happy to do this.
  Mrs. BOXER. Parliamentary inquiry: May I ask the Chair how many 
amendments we have voted on in this budget, both voice and actual 
votes?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. It will take some time to answer 
that.
  Mrs. MURRAY. May I make a suggestion?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I think a lot of people want to know the answer to that 
question. If we could move to the Flake amendment, ask me any question 
you have, and I will have the answer for you.
  Mrs. BOXER. I have the answer. It is 61.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington has a 
unanimous consent request. Is there objection? Hearing none, so 
ordered.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the 
amendments en bloc.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes 
     amendments en bloc: for Mr. Flake, amendment numbered 225, 
     for Mr. Graham, amendment numbered 329, for Mr. Heller, 
     amendment numbered 293, for Mr. Boozman, amendment numbered 
     527, for Mr. Portman, amendment numbered 153, for Ms. Ayotte, 
     amendment numbered 136.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 225

                    (Purpose: To prohibit earmarks)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. SENATE POINT OF ORDER AGAINST LEGISLATION THAT 
                   CONTAINS EARMARKS.

       (a) In General.--It shall not be in order in the Senate to 
     consider a bill or resolution introduced in the Senate or the 
     House of Representatives, amendment, amendment between the 
     Houses, or conference report that includes an earmark.
       (b) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal in the Senate.--
       (1) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended in the 
     Senate only by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the 
     Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (2) Appeal.--An affirmative vote of two-thirds of the 
     Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be 
     required in the Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of 
     the Chair on a point of order raised under this section.
       (c) Consideration.--
       (1) Procedure.--Upon a point of order being made by any 
     Senator pursuant to subsection (a) against an earmark, and 
     such point of order being sustained, such earmark shall be 
     deemed stricken.
       (2) Conference report and amendment between the houses 
     procedure.--When the Senate is considering a conference 
     report on, or an amendment between the Houses, upon a point 
     of order being made by any Senator pursuant to subsection 
     (a), and such point of order being sustained, such material 
     contained in such conference report shall be deemed stricken, 
     and the Senate shall proceed to consider the question of 
     whether the Senate shall recede from its amendment and concur 
     with a further amendment, or concur in the House amendment 
     with a further amendment, as the case may be, which further 
     amendment shall consist of only that portion of the 
     conference report or House amendment, as the case may be, not 
     so stricken. Any such motion in the Senate shall be debatable 
     under the same conditions as was the conference report. In 
     any case in which such point of order is sustained against a 
     conference report (or Senate amendment derived from such 
     conference report by operation of this subsection), no 
     further amendment shall be in order.
       (d) Definitions.--
       (1) Earmark.--For the purpose of this section, the term 
     ``earmark'' means a provision or report language included 
     primarily at the request of a Senator or Member of the House 
     of Representatives as certified under paragraph 1(a)(1) of 
     rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate--
       (A) providing, authorizing, or recommending a specific 
     amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, 
     or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan 
     guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with 
     or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or 
     Congressional district, other than through a statutory or 
     administrative formula-driven or competitive award process; 
     or
       (B) that--
       (i)(I) provides a Federal tax deduction, credit, exclusion, 
     or preference to a particular beneficiary or limited group of 
     beneficiaries under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
       (II) contains eligibility criteria that are not uniform in 
     application with respect to potential beneficiaries of such 
     provision; or
       (ii) modifies the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
     States in a manner that benefits 10 or fewer entities.
       (2) Determination by the senate.--In the event the Chair is 
     unable to ascertain whether or not the offending provision 
     constitutes an earmark as defined in this subsection, the 
     question of whether the provision constitutes an earmark 
     shall be submitted to the Senate and be decided without 
     debate by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members, 
     duly chosen and sworn.
       (e) Application.--This section shall not apply to any 
     authorization of appropriations to a Federal entity if such 
     authorization is not specifically targeted to a State, 
     locality or congressional district.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 329

 (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to broaden the 
  effects of the sequester, including allowing Members of Congress to 
donate 20 percent of their salaries to charity or to the Department of 
                   the Treasury during sequestration)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO BROADEN THE EFFECTS 
                   OF THE SEQUESTER, INCLUDING ALLOWING MEMBERS OF 
                   CONGRESS TO DONATE A PORTION OF THEIR SALARIES 
                   TO CHARITY OR TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 
                   DURING SEQUESTRATION.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     motions, or conference

[[Page 4591]]

     reports that are related to broadening the impact of the 
     sequester, which may include allowing Members of Congress to 
     donate 20 percent of their salaries to charity or to the 
     Department of the Treasury if the enforcement procedures 
     established under section 251A of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and section 901(e) of 
     the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 go into, or remain 
     in effect, provided that such legislation would not increase 
     the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal 
     years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal 
     years 2013 through 2023.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 293

 (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to ensure that 
 the Bureau of Land Management collaborates with States in efforts to 
  promote sustainable sage-grouse populations and the conservation of 
   sage-grouse habitat by developing and approving State plans that 
  prevent the listing of the bird under the Endangered Species Act of 
   1973 and preserve the way of life in, and economic health of, the 
                            impacted areas)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO ENSURE THE BUREAU 
                   OF LAND MANAGEMENT COLLABORATES WITH WESTERN 
                   STATES TO PREVENT THE LISTING OF THE SAGE-
                   GROUSE.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for 1 or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports 
     that would improve the management of public land and natural 
     resources, by the amounts provided in the legislation for 
     those purposes, provided that the legislation would not 
     increase the deficit over either the period of the total of 
     fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the total of 
     fiscal years 2013 through 2023.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 527

  (Purpose: To establish a deficit-reduction reserve fund to protect 
 private property rights by discouraging eminent domain abuse by State 
     and local governments, while providing for continued economic 
  development assistance eligibility where eminent domain is used for 
 customary purposes, including to acquire property for public use, for 
   public rights of way, to acquire abandoned property, or to remove 
immediate threats to public health and safety, and to provide that any 
                    savings will reduce the deficit)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ______. DEFICIT-REDUCTION RESERVE FUND FOR EMINENT 
                   DOMAIN ABUSE PREVENTION.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget shall 
     reduce allocations, pursuant to section 302(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, equal to amounts withheld 
     pursuant to one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports 
     related to federal economic development assistance, which may 
     include amendments to the eligibility of a State or local 
     government to receive benefits, including restricting 
     benefits when eminent domain has been used to take private 
     property and transfer it to another private use, and reduce 
     the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal 
     years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal 
     years 2013 through 2023. The Chairman may also make 
     adjustments to the Senate's pay-as-you-go ledger over 6 and 
     11 years to ensure that the deficit reduction achieved is 
     used for deficit reduction only. The adjustments authorized 
     under this section shall be of the amount of deficit 
     reduction achieved.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 153

   (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to promote 
                                exports.

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 332. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR EXPORT PROMOTION.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     motions, or conference reports that relate to promoting 
     exports, which may include providing the President with trade 
     promotion authority, by the amounts provided in such 
     legislation for those purposes, provided that such 
     legislation would not increase the deficit over either the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 136

     (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund for the 
   prohibition on funding of the Medium Extended Air Defense System)

         At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE PROHIBITION 
                   ON FUNDING OF THE MEDIUM EXTENDED AIR DEFENSE 
                   SYSTEM.

         The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     amendments between Houses, motions, or conference reports 
     relating to prohibiting use of funds for defense programs not 
     authorized by law, which may include the Medium Extended Air 
     Defense System (MEADS), without raising new revenue, by the 
     amounts provided in such legislation for that purpose, 
     provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit 
     over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 
     through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 
     through 2023.


                      Amendment No. 225 Withdrawn

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is now 2 minutes equally 
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 225, offered by 
the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Flake.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. I have not yet delivered my maiden speech. I will be very 
brief. I plan to withdraw this amendment, and I understand there will 
be a point of order raised against germaneness with a 60-vote threshold 
I can't overcome. I just want to make the point this body has done good 
work in the last 2 years on a bipartisan basis to get rid of the 
scourge of earmarks and the abuse of earmarks which has taken place in 
both this Chamber and the House.
  This amendment would have simply been for a point of order to be 
raised if earmarks were contained in legislation. I would encourage 
this body to continue the practice which has occurred over the past 2 
years and not have congressional earmarks. I thank you for your 
indulgence.
  I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment is withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 329

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is now 2 minutes equally 
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 329, offered by 
the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham.
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the next amendment is offered by Senator 
Graham, amendment No. 329.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. We need to vote on this.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. This amendment will get your attention.
  About 500,000 or 600,000 Federal employees will be furloughed because 
of sequestration. They are going to miss 1 day a week of pay. We can't 
dock our own pay constitutionally, but I am asking through this 
amendment that all of us, beginning in April, take 20 percent of our 
salary and give it to the charity of our choice or anybody we would 
like so that we would feel what other people are feeling because of 
sequestration.
  Thank you. Have a good night.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there an amendment?
  Mr. GRAHAM. What is the question?
  I will take a voice vote, absolutely.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I am happy to take a voice vote on this amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there any further debate?
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The Chair is in doubt.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The noes appear to have it.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Wait a minute. I ask for a rollcall vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, may I have the floor for a moment?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I was really trying to focus on what the 
Senator was saying. It was very difficult for me to understand, and I 
think many of us were confused about the amendment. I support the 
amendment, and I ask for a voice vote.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 329) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 293

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 2 minutes of debate 
equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 293, 
offered by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Heller.

[[Page 4592]]


  Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, my amendment reinforces the important role 
of States having primary responsibility for wildlife management. If the 
sage-grouse is listed as an endangered species, it will hurt most 
States in the western portion of the country. It will make important 
activities, such as renewable energy and grazing, in many cases 
impossible.
  I need help and support. I urge support for this amendment, and I 
appreciate the help and support I have gotten from Senators Hatch, 
Crapo, and Risch.
  I thank the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this actually is a commonsense approach, 
and I do urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I will be happy to accept it on a voice vote.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 293) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 527

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is now 2 minutes equally 
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 527, offered by 
the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Boozman.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, this amendment would discourage the 
taking of private property to transfer to another private, 
nongovernmental use. It does not diminish the use of eminent domain for 
customary purposes, including the acquiring of property for public use, 
for public rights-of-way, to acquire abandoned property, or to remove 
immediate threats to public health or safety.
  In the past, we have had significant bipartisan support in regard to 
protecting property rights, so I would encourage us to vote in favor of 
the amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I do not oppose this amendment, and I am 
happy to have a voice vote.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there further debate?
  The question is agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 527) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 153

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is now 2 minutes equally 
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 153, offered by 
the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Portman.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, this is a jobs amendment. This is about 
having authority to knock down barriers to trade.
  I am offering this in connection with Senator Wyden today and also 
Senator Hatch. Expanding exports and enforcing our trade laws go hand 
in hand. That is why later I will be supporting the ENFORCE Act offered 
by Senator Wyden.
  The bottom line is that not since 2007 have we had trade promotion 
authority in this country, and without it we can't complete trade 
agreements. As a result, America is falling behind because other 
countries are completing agreements, and the people who are getting 
hurt the most are our workers, our farmers, and our service providers.
  So if you want to give our workers in this country a fair shake, a 
level playing field by knocking down barriers to trade, you can vote 
for this amendment.
  I yield to my colleague from Oregon.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, very briefly, I think this is an 
opportunity to update our laws, particularly looking at environmental 
protection, labor rights, and digital trade. So I urge all colleagues 
to support this amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am willing to accept this on a voice 
vote.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 153) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 136

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is now 2 minutes equally 
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 136, offered by 
the Senator from New Hampshire, Ms. Ayotte.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, my amendment would establish a deficit-
neutral reserve fund to prohibit funding for the Medium Extended Air 
Defense System, known as MEADS. This is a system our Army has said 
would never work. We have already spent $3 billion on this system. It 
is essentially a missile to nowhere. In fact, the chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee, Senator Levin, has said he feels strongly that it 
is a waste of money. We have already appropriated $380 million in 2013 
for something our troops will never use.
  Some have argued there is an agreement that we have to pay 
termination fees. That is false. The actual agreement says the 
responsibility of the participants will be subject to the availability 
of funds appropriated for such purposes. The language is clear.
  With $16 trillion in debt, I would urge my colleagues to stop funding 
the missile to nowhere and make sure our taxpayer dollars are used 
wisely.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. AYOTTE. I thank the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield to the Senator from Illinois.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to suggest that the amendment 
being offered by the Senator from New Hampshire is unnecessary. It 
relates to fiscal year 2014. There will be no request for this missile 
system in fiscal year 2014.
  I suggest that if she wants to pass this, she might, but perhaps she 
can do it by voice vote because her amendment won't apply to any 
suggested funding for this missile system in this next fiscal year.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I am amenable to a voice vote.
  Mr. COBURN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask that the chairman be recognized. She 
tried to get recognition, and she couldn't.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, before we go to the rollcall vote on 
this, I want to turn to all my colleagues and remind all of us that 
what we are here trying to do is to pass a budget out of the Senate.
  I have heard from so many people for so many months about how 
important it is that we get a budget out so we can move to the next 
process in this whole thing of getting our country back on track, and 
we are trying to do it in a responsible way.
  We have had a really great debate in our committee, out here on the 
floor, and many Senators have participated in it. We have now had I 
believe 62 or 63 amendments, and I think we have a responsibility to 
work toward final passage.
  I am aware that not every Senator had an opportunity to have an 
amendment, but I think many, many Senators have to say they were able 
to get their amendments. We have had amendments on virtually every 
topic here tonight, including the budget, but I would really ask all 
Senators to stop and think about what we are showing the American 
public.
  What we would like the American public to think is that the Senate as 
a group of 100 people can have a process to move a budget forward and 
vote on it, whether we agree with it or we disagree with it. And I 
think we are pretty much there in showing the American public that we 
can have a good debate, have numerous amendments, have our voices 
heard. At the end of the day, it is a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote.

[[Page 4593]]

  So while we have this next vote, I would really like everyone to take 
a second and think about how we look to the American people and how 
important it is that we move this process along so that we can come to 
a final conclusion and hopefully get bipartisan agreement to get our 
country back on track.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Murray for her 
leadership and for her fairness in helping us move a lot of amendments 
fairly and equitably tonight. We are in a situation where--no need to 
debate it into the night--I wish we had not been in a position where 
the majority leader was determined to finish this weekend. I wish we 
could have started earlier in the week or to come back on April 8, but 
that is not possible.
  We have gone 4 years without a budget, and Members have been 
constricted in the filing of amendments this year more than any other 
time in probably the history of the Senate. One has to ask or beg 
permission to be allowed to have an amendment. Senator Ayotte is one of 
those. Senator Moran and others had amendments. So they are frustrated, 
and they want their votes.
  So I would just say, let's keep going. Let's keep in good humor. 
Let's try to get as many of these votes in as possible. I have had 
several Members suggest that we might vote from our chairs and not 
leave the Chamber and cut these rollcall votes down to a much shorter 
period of time. Maybe we could discuss that. But I think the list needs 
to be continued to be produced. A number of Senators haven't had 
amendments, and they really feel as though they have a right to. And 
this may be their only opportunity, the way things are going this year, 
to even get a vote on something they care about.
  So that is my observation.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we do have a vote that needs to occur but 
a final word here. I would just say that we want to get a budget 
passed, and I know the minority wants us to pass a budget. We have been 
told that time and time again. We can't pass a budget if we are 
filibustered by amendments for the rest of the night.
  So I would urge all our colleagues to have this vote, and let's have 
some discussions and see if we can come to a final conclusion.
  With that, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, point of information.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. I would like to ask the distinguished budget chair 
through the Chair what delay or what conflict with any other event 
could this possibly pose until at least 6 or 7 a.m.? I don't understand 
what delay that would cause, to allow more votes on amendments, or what 
conflict that could possibly pose with any other events, including 
airplane flights, at least until several hours from now. None of us 
wants to delay the process, and none of us wants to prevent a vote. 
Clearly, that is not an issue for several hours. I would just ask that 
of the distinguished chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Washington 
wish to respond?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I can keep on standing all night. I am 
sure a number of Senators can. I do have respect for a number of our 
Senators here who may not be able to stand as long as some of us or who 
are elderly, and I would ask consideration of them. That is just my 
request.
  With that, I do think we need to get to a vote here.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There has been a request for the 
yeas and nays.
  Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient 
second.
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 5, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 80 Leg.]

                                YEAS--94

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coats
     Coburn
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cowan
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lee
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--5

     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Isakson
     Sessions
     Shelby

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The amendment (No. 136) was agreed to.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the order, the majority has 
the next amendment.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we have been working throughout the last 
vote. I am hoping we are getting to a very short list in the near 
future.
  I recognize there are Senators who are frustrated and that want an 
opportunity to speak out. I know there are a number of Senators who are 
very tired. Everybody's patience is wearing thin. I would just ask 
everybody to hold your patience for just a few more minutes. I am going 
to put us into a quorum call. I am hoping we can get an agreement and 
give everybody some certainty.
  I know on our side we want to get a budget passed. We have been 
working for a great deal of time. We want to move this process forward. 
We know there are Senators on the other side who may not agree with our 
budget but agree with us that we have to move to a process to get our 
country back on track.
  So I would ask everybody's patience for just a short while; 
hopefully, we can get this resolved and we can get a budget passed.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Washington yield 
for a question?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I will hold the floor and yield for a 
question.
  Mr. SESSIONS. If the Senator will yield for a question with regard to 
the possibility of us starting one of the votes that will probably be a 
rollcall vote, and let's get started on that while we work out the 
further details.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would be willing to get an amendment 
going, but I haven't seen it yet. I would like the ability to take a 
look at it, so I suggest the absence of a quorum. It will only be for a 
very few minutes--patience, please--and then we will come back in and 
see if we can get to a vote.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am proud of our Senators for having 
patience for exactly 30 seconds.
  I yield to the Senator from Idaho to offer an amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Idaho.


                           Amendment No. 318

  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up 
amendment No. 318.

[[Page 4594]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 318.

  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
further reading of the amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

     (Purpose: To amend the reconciliation instruction to include 
instructions to the Committee on Finance to achieve the Budget's stated 
         goal of $275 billion in mandatory health care savings)

       On page 50, line 1, after the number ``$975,000,000,000'' 
     insert the following: ``and sufficient to reduce outlays by 
     $275,000,000,000''

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, there is now 2 
minutes of debate.
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, in the budget that has been put forward, 
there is a reconciliation instruction for almost $1 trillion of new 
taxes. On the spending side there is, I think, a relatively modest 
amount--not adequate--but there is an amount of health care savings in 
the amount of $275 billion. Interestingly, that is not in a 
reconciliation instruction. We do not have the protection and 
assistance of a reconciliation instruction for the economy reforms that 
are in the budget but we do for the tax increases that are in the 
budget which results in this interesting circumstance. The tax 
increases by this budget would be guaranteed to occur because the 
filibuster would be avoided through reconciliation, and the reforms of 
the entitlement system would be guaranteed not to occur because they 
would face a 60-vote margin, having been kept out of the reconciliation 
instructions.
  What this amendment does is it would put the health care savings in 
the budget into a reconciliation instruction so we can at least start 
down the path of dealing with reforms of our entitlement system.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Let me thank the Senator from Idaho, who has been very 
involved in a lot of discussions over time in trying to manage us 
toward a better place with our Federal debt and deficit. I understand 
his dedication, but I oppose this amendment. Over the last several 
years we have enacted $1.8 trillion in spending cuts on a bipartisan 
basis. We do not have any trouble cutting spending in this body right 
now. We do seem to have trouble locking in the revenue necessary to 
achieve a balanced revenue reduction. I recommend our colleagues oppose 
this amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 81 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--52

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The amendment (No. 318) was rejected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that the following package of 
amendments, 17 Democratic and 13 Republican amendments, be considered 
and agreed to en bloc: Shaheen No. 149, Blumenthal-Moran No. 577, 
Johnson No. 593, Manchin No. 316, Wyden No. 394, Baucus No. 267, Hagan 
No. 269, Franken No. 353, Cardin No. 453, Udall of New Mexico No. 192, 
Franken No. 479, Baucus No. 581, Casey No. 265, Sanders No. 594, Wyden-
Portman No. 618, Levin No. 430, as modified, Manchin No. 499, Toomey 
No. 434, Coats No. 195, Hoeven No. 319, Ayotte No. 161, Kirk No. 671, 
Murkowski No. 672, Rubio No. 623, Alexander No. 348, Boozman No. 389, 
Heller No. 477, Hoeven No. 217, Enzi No. 489, and Hoeven No. 655.
  This is a package that has been agreed to by both managers, and I 
urge the Senate to accept them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, it is understood that we 
are having a side-by-side that would be on there.
  No objection.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object, does the Senator have 
foreign affairs amendments there?
  Mrs. MURRAY. That is different.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 149

 (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to increase the 
 capacity of Federal agencies to ensure effective contract management 
                        and contract oversight)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO INCREASE THE 
                   CAPACITY OF AGENCIES TO ENSURE EFFECTIVE 
                   CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AND CONTRACT OVERSIGHT.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     motions, or conference reports that would increase the 
     capacity of Federal agencies to ensure effective contract 
     management and contract oversight, including efforts such as 
     additional personnel and training for Inspectors General at 
     each agency, new reporting requirements for agencies to track 
     their responses to and actions taken in response to Inspector 
     General recommendations, urging the President to appoint 
     permanent Inspectors General at agencies where there is 
     currently a vacancy, and any other effort to ensure 
     accountability from contractors and increase the capacity of 
     Inspectors General to rout out waste, fraud, and abuse in all 
     government contracting efforts, by the amounts provided in 
     such legislation for those purposes, provided that such 
     legislation would not increase the deficit over either the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 577

 (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund for legislation 
    to ensure operation of all contract air traffic control towers 
  receiving funding through the contract tower program of the Federal 
 Aviation Administration as of March 20, 2013, and that are located at 
 airports still in service as of the date of the introduction of such 
                              legislation)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 332. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR INVESTMENTS IN AIR 
                   TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICES.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports 
     relating to Federal investment in civil air traffic control 
     services, which may include air traffic management at airport 
     towers across the United States or at facilities of

[[Page 4595]]

     the Federal Aviation Administration, by the amounts provided 
     in such legislation for those purposes, provided that such 
     legislation would not increase the deficit over either the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 593

(Purpose: To establish a scorekeeping rule to ensure that increases in 
   guarantee fees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shall not be used to 
              offset provisions that increase the deficit)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. PROHIBITING THE USE OF GUARANTEE FEES AS AN OFFSET.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to ensure that 
     increases in guarantee fees charged by Fannie Mae and Freddie 
     Mac shall not be used to offset provisions that increase the 
     deficit.
       (b) Budgetary Rule.--In the Senate, for purposes of 
     determining budgetary impacts to evaluate points of order 
     under this resolution and the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, this resolution, any previous resolution, and any 
     subsequent budget resolution, provisions contained in any 
     bill, resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report 
     that increases any guarantee fees of Fannie Mae and Freddie 
     Mac shall not be scored with respect to the level of budget 
     authority, outlays, or revenues contained in such 
     legislation.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 316

   (Purpose: To address prescription drug abuse in the United States)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO ADDRESS 
                   PRESCRIPTION DRUG ABUSE IN THE UNITED STATES.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     motions, or conference reports related to addressing 
     prescription drug abuse, by the amounts provided in such 
     legislation for those purposes, provided that such 
     legislation would not increase the deficit over either the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 394

(Purpose: To ensure that chronic illness is addressed as part of health 
                           care improvement)

       On page, 62, line 12, insert ``focus on chronic illness,'' 
     after ``efficiency,''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 267

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to support rural 
                         schools and districts)

       On page 76, after line 25, add the following:

     SEC. 332. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO SUPPORT RURAL 
                   SCHOOLS AND DISTRICTS.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     motions, or conference reports related to the establishment 
     of the Office of Rural Education Policy within the Department 
     of Education, which could include a clearinghouse for 
     information related to the challenges of rural schools and 
     districts or providing technical assistance within the 
     Department of Education on rules and regulations that impact 
     rural schools and districts, provided that such legislation 
     would not increase the deficit over either the period of the 
     total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the 
     total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 269

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to strengthen the 
   enforcement of provisions of free trade agreements that relate to 
                     textile and apparel articles)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 332. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO STRENGTHEN 
                   ENFORCEMENT OF FREE TRADE AGREEMENT PROVISIONS 
                   RELATING TO TEXTILE AND APPAREL ARTICLES.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     motions, or conference reports that relate to strengthening 
     the enforcement of provisions of free trade agreements that 
     relate to textile and apparel articles, which may include 
     increased training with respect to, and monitoring and 
     verification of, textile and apparel articles, by the amounts 
     provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided 
     that such legislation would not increase the deficit over 
     either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 
     2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 
     2023.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 353

  (Purpose: To amend section 308 relating to broadband infrastructure 
                      investments in rural areas)

       On page 59, line 1, after ``telecommunications,'' insert 
     ``including promoting investments in broadband infrastructure 
     to expedite deployment of broadband to rural areas,''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 453

(Purpose: To provide for a deficit-neutral reserve fund on health care 
                              improvement)

       On page 62, line 13, insert ``improve overall population 
     health, promote health equity or reduce health disparities,'' 
     after ``nation,''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 192

  (Purpose: To modify the deficit-neutral reserve fund for America's 
   servicemembers and veterans to increase access to health care for 
                        veterans in rural areas)

       On page 60, strike line 7 and insert the following:
     credentialing requirements; or
       (6) supporting additional efforts to increase access to 
     health care for veterans in rural areas through telehealth 
     and other programs that reduce the need for such veterans to 
     travel long distances to a medical facility of the Department 
     of Veterans Affairs;


                           AMENDMENT NO. 479

(Purpose: To provide an additional use for the deficit-neutral reserve 
                       fund for higher education)

       On page 60, line 22, insert ``standardize financial aid 
     award letters,'' after ``students,''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 581

          (Purpose: To exempt remote sales of business inputs)

       On page 2, line 10, insert ``and provided that such 
     legislation may include requirements that States recognize 
     the value of small businesses to the United States economy by 
     exempting the remote sales of business inputs from sales and 
     use taxes'' after ``2023''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 265

 (Purpose: To prohibit certain revisions of allocations for workforce 
 investment measures that lack program integrity controls for the Job 
                             Corps program)

       On page 76, line 18, strike ``reduce'' and all that follows 
     through ``job training,'' on lines 19 and 20 and insert 
     ``ensure effective administration, reduce inefficient 
     overlap, improve access, and enhance outcomes of Federal 
     workforce development, youth and adult job training,''


                           AMENDMENT NO. 594

 (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to the 
  Older Americans Act of 1965, which may include congregate and home-
  delivered meals programs, or other assistance to low-income seniors)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO ASSIST LOW-INCOME 
                   SENIORS.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports 
     relating to the Older Americans Act of 1965, which may 
     include congregate and home-delivered meals programs, or 
     other assistance to low-income seniors, by the amounts 
     provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided 
     that such legislation would not increase the deficit over 
     either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 
     2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 
     2023.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 618

 (Purpose: To provide for the enforcement of the trade remedy laws of 
                           the United States)

       On page 52, line 18, strike ``, or international'' and 
     insert ``(including requiring timely and time-limited 
     investigations into the evasion of antidumping and 
     countervailing duties), or international''.


                     AMENDMENT NO. 430, as modified

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. ___. RESERVE FUND TO END OFFSHORE TAX ABUSES BY LARGE 
                   CORPORATIONS.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels and limits in this 
     resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions, 
     amendments, amendments between the Houses, motions, or 
     conference reports related to corporate income taxes, which 
     may include measures to end offshore tax abuses used by large 
     corporations, or measures providing for comprehensive tax 
     reform that ensures a revenue structure that is more 
     efficient, leads to a more competitive business environment, 
     and may result in additional rate or deficit reductions, 
     provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit 
     over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 
     through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 
     through 2023''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 499

 (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to ensure that 
abundant domestic energy sources and technologies can meet present and 
                 future greenhouse gas emissions rules)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

[[Page 4596]]



     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO ENSURE THAT 
                   DOMESTIC ENERGY SOURCES CAN MEET EMISSIONS 
                   RULES.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for 1 or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, motions, 
     or conference reports that are related to the research, 
     development, and demonstration necessary for domestically 
     abundant energy sources and current energy technologies to 
     comply with present and future greenhouse gas emissions rules 
     while still remaining economically competitive, by the 
     amounts provided in the legislation for those purposes, 
     provided that the legislation would not increase the deficit 
     over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 
     through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 
     through 2023.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 434

   (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to 
          increasing funding for the inland waterways system)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO INCREASING 
                   FUNDING FOR THE INLAND WATERWAYS SYSTEM.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports 
     relating to funding the inland waterways system, by the 
     amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes, 
     provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit 
     over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 
     through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 
     through 2023.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 195

(Purpose: To require fuller reporting on possible costs to taxpayers of 
                 any budget submitted by the President)

       At the end of title V, add the following:

     SEC. 5__. TO REQUIRE FULLER REPORTING ON POSSIBLE COSTS TO 
                   TAXPAYERS OF ANY BUDGET SUBMITTED BY THE 
                   PRESIDENT.

       When the Congressional Budget Office submits its report to 
     Congress relating to a budget submitted by the President for 
     a fiscal year under section 1105 of title 31, United States 
     Code, such report shall contain--
       (1) an estimate of the pro rata cost for taxpayers who will 
     file individual income tax returns for taxable years ending 
     during such fiscal year of any deficit that would result from 
     the budget; and
       (2) an analysis of the budgetary effects described in 
     paragraph (1).


                           AMENDMENT NO. 319

 (Purpose: To provide additional resources to Criminal Investigations 
          and Police Services of the Bureau of Indian Affairs)

       On page 28, line 3, increase the amount by $3,500,000.
       On page 28, line 4, increase the amount by $3,500,000.
       On page 46, line 11, decrease the amount by $3,500,000.
       On page 46, line 12, decrease the amount by $3,500,000.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 161

  (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund for achieving 
  full auditability of the financial statements of the Department of 
                            Defense by 2017)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR ACHIEVING FULL 
                   AUDITABILITY OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE 
                   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BY 2017.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     amendments between Houses, motions, or conference reports 
     relating to achieving full auditability of the financial 
     statements Department of Defense by 2017, without raising new 
     revenue, by the amounts provided in such legislation for that 
     purpose, provided that such legislation would not increase 
     the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal 
     years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal 
     years 2013 through 2023.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 671

   (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to 
                    sanctions with respect to Iran)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 332. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO SANCTIONS 
                   WITH RESPECT TO IRAN.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports 
     relating to Iran, which may include efforts to clarify that 
     the clearance and settlement of euro-denominated transactions 
     through European Union financial institutions may not result 
     in the evasion of or otherwise undermine the impact of 
     sanctions imposed with respect to Iran by the United States 
     and the European Union (including provisions designed to 
     strictly limit the access of the Government of Iran to its 
     foreign exchange reserves and the facilitation of 
     transactions on behalf of sanctioned entities), by the 
     amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes, 
     provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit 
     over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 
     through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 
     through 2023.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 672

     (Purpose: To permit a deficit-neutral reserve fund to provide 
         assistance for fishery disasters declared during 2012)

       On page 58, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       (10) to provide assistance for fishery disasters declared 
     by the Secretary of Commerce during 2012;


                           AMENDMENT NO. 623

     (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on underutilized 
  facilities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and 
                          their potential use)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF SENATE ON UNDERUTILIZED FACILITIES OF THE 
                   NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 
                   AND THEIR POTENTIAL USE.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
       (1) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
     (NASA) is the ninth largest real property holder of the 
     Federal Government, with more than 124,000 acres and more 
     than 4,900 buildings and other structures with a replacement 
     value of more than $30,000,000,000.
       (2) The annual operation and maintenance costs of the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration have increased 
     steadily, and, as of 2012, the Administration has more than 
     $2,300,000,000 in annual deferred maintenance costs.
       (3) According to Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the 
     Administration continues to retain real property that is 
     underutilized, does not have identified future mission uses, 
     or is duplicative of other assets in its real property 
     inventory.
       (4) The Office of Inspector General, the Government 
     Accountability Office (GAO), and Congress have identified the 
     aging and duplicative infrastructure of the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration as a high priority and 
     longstanding management challenge.
       (5) In the NASA Authorization Act of 2010, Congress 
     directed the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to 
     examine its real property assets and downsize to fit current 
     and future missions and expected funding levels, paying 
     particular attention to identifying and removing unneeded or 
     duplicative infrastructure.
       (6) The Office of Inspector General found at least 33 
     facilities, including wind tunnels, test stands, airfields, 
     and launch infrastructure, that were underutilized or for 
     which National Aeronautics and Space Administration managers 
     could not identify a future mission use and that the need for 
     these facilities have declined in recent years as a result of 
     changes in the mission focus of the Administration, the 
     condition and obsolescence of some facilities, and the advent 
     of alternative testing methods.
       (7) The Office of Inspector General found that the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration has taken steps to 
     minimize the costs of continuing to maintain some of these 
     facilities by placing them in an inactive state or leasing 
     them to other parties.
       (8) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has a 
     series of initiatives underway that, in the judgment of the 
     Office of Inspector General, are ``positive steps towards 
     `rightsizing' its real property footprint'', and the Office 
     of Inspector General has concluded that ``it is imperative 
     that NASA move forward aggressively with its infrastructure 
     reduction efforts''.
       (9) Existing and emerging United States commercial launch 
     and exploration capabilities are providing cargo 
     transportation to the International Space Station and offer 
     the potential for providing crew support, access to the 
     International Space Station, and missions to low Earth orbit 
     while the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
     focuses its efforts on heavy-lift capabilities and deep space 
     missions.
       (10) National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
     facilities and property that are underutilized, duplicative, 
     or no longer needed for Administration requirements could be 
     utilized by commercial users and State and local entities, 
     resulting in savings for the Administration and a reduction 
     in the burden of the Federal Government to fund space 
     operations.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that 
     the levels in this concurrent resolution assume--

[[Page 4597]]

       (1) the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
     should move forward with plans to reduce its infrastructure 
     and, to the greatest extent practicable, make property 
     available for lease to a government or private tenant;
       (2) the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
     should pursue opportunities for streamlined sale or lease of 
     property and facilities, including for exclusive use, to a 
     private entity, or expedited conveyance or transfer to a 
     State or political subdivision, municipality, instrumentality 
     of a State, or Department of Transportation-licensed launch 
     site operators for the promotion of commercial or scientific 
     space activity and for developing and operating space launch 
     facilities; and
       (3) leasing or transferring underutilized facilities and 
     properties to commercial space entities or State or local 
     governments will reduce operation and maintenance costs for 
     the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, save money 
     for the Federal Government, and promote commercial space and 
     the exploration goals of the Administration and the United 
     States.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 348

   (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to prevent 
 restrictions to public access to fishing downstream of dams owned by 
                        the Corps of Engineers)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO PREVENT 
                   RESTRICTIONS TO PUBLIC ACCESS TO FISHING 
                   DOWNSTREAM OF DAMS OWNED BY THE CORPS OF 
                   ENGINEERS.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for 1 or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, motions, 
     or conference reports relating to prohibiting the Corps of 
     Engineers from restricting public access to waters downstream 
     of a Corps of Engineers dam, without raising new revenue, by 
     the amounts provided in the legislation for those purposes, 
     provided that the legislation would not increase the deficit 
     over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 
     through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 
     through 2023.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 389

 (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to address the 
        disproportionate regulatory burdens on community banks)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO ADDRESS THE 
                   DISPROPORTIONATE REGULATORY BURDENS ON 
                   COMMUNITY BANKS.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports 
     relating to alleviating disproportionate regulatory burdens 
     on community banks, by the amounts provided in such 
     legislation for that purpose, provided that such legislation 
     would not increase the deficit over either the period of the 
     total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the 
     total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 477

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to authorize the 
    provision of per diem payments for the provision of services to 
    dependents of homeless veterans under laws administered by the 
                     Secretary of Veterans Affairs)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO AUTHORIZE PROVISION 
                   OF PER DIEM PAYMENTS FOR PROVISION OF SERVICES 
                   TO DEPENDENTS OF HOMELESS VETERANS UNDER LAWS 
                   ADMINISTERED BY SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     amendments between both Houses, motions, or conference 
     reports related to care, services, or benefits for homeless 
     veterans, which may include providing per diem payments for 
     the furnishing of care for dependents of homeless veterans, 
     without raising new revenue, by the amounts provided in such 
     legislation for those purposes, provided that such 
     legislation would not increase the deficit over either the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 217

   (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to support 
 programs related to the nuclear missions of the Department of Defense 
           and the National Nuclear Security Administration)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 332. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO SUPPORT PROGRAMS 
                   RELATED TO THE NUCLEAR MISSIONS OF THE 
                   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND THE NATIONAL NUCLEAR 
                   SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     motions, or conference reports that support programs related 
     to the nuclear missions of the Department of Defense and the 
     National Nuclear Security Administration, by the amounts 
     provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided 
     that such legislation would not increase the deficit over 
     either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 
     2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 
     2023.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 489

 (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to phase-in any 
          changes to the individual or corporate tax systems)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO PHASE-IN ANY 
                   CHANGES TO INDIVIDUAL OR CORPORATE TAX SYSTEMS.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     motions, or conference reports relating to the phase-in of 
     any changes to the individual or corporate tax systems, 
     including any changes to individual or corporate income tax 
     exclusions, exemptions, deductions, or credits, by the 
     amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes, 
     provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit 
     over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 
     through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 
     through 2023.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 655

   (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to 
increases in aid for tribal education programs, including the Tribally 
  Controlled Postsecondary Career and Technical Institutions Program 
              administered by the Department of Education)

       On page 76, after line 25, add the following:

     SEC. 332. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO INCREASES 
                   IN AID FOR TRIBAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports 
     relating to increases in aid for tribal education programs, 
     including the Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Career and 
     Technical Institutions Program administered by the Department 
     of Education, by the amounts provided in such legislation for 
     those purposes, provided that such legislation would not 
     increase the deficit over either the period of the total of 
     fiscal years 2014 through 2018 or the period of the total of 
     fiscal years 2014 through 2023.

  Mrs. MURRAY. I am now going to ask for unanimous consent for a number 
of amendments to get to final passage. I would say to all Senators that 
we are going to have a number of votes. We would like to tell everyone 
to sit in your seat. We will get through these faster if we can have 
the rollcalls and be done quickly. So I encourage everyone to be in 
this room.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that on the next 
block of amendments--we have talked to everybody who was talkable--we 
would vote from our desks. There would be no recapping of the votes by 
the tally clerks, and that they be 7 1/2-minute votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank the leader. I think it has 
real potential. There still would be some votes that could go by voice 
vote, we would hope. But if we do this pressure in this way I think it 
would speed up things. I thank the leader for that suggestion. I have 
heard it from our side for a while. I think it is a good idea.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


amendments nos. 184, 382, 526, 338, 471, 702, 673, 521, 414, 416, 709, 
                       154, 710, and 139, en bloc

  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that the next amendments in 
order to be called up be the following: Barrasso No. 184, Paul No. 382, 
Vitter No. 526, Vitter No. 338, Cruz No. 471, Cruz No. 702, Lee No. 
673, Lee No. 521, Coburn No. 414, Coburn No. 416, Coburn No. 709, 
Portman No. 154, Leahy No. 710, a side-by-side to Senator Inhofe's No. 
139, and Inhofe No. 139; that there be no second-degree amendments 
prior

[[Page 4598]]

to votes in relation to any of those amendments; that none of the 
amendments be divisible; that notwithstanding all time having expired 
under the resolution, there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each 
vote, and that all votes be 10-minute votes; that upon disposition of 
the Inhofe amendment No. 139, the Senate proceed immediately to vote on 
adoption of S. Con. Res. 8, as amended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object, I will not object, but I 
do want our colleagues to understand that some of these amendments the 
chairwoman just asked to be put in order are incredibly fundamental 
important foreign policy issues that you do not do at 3 in the morning 
and change the dynamics of the Middle East, and change the dynamics of 
our national security and interests in international organizations.
  That is what some of these amendments will do. You do not do it in a 
budget process, you do it through regular order in a committee that 
ultimately can hear both sides as we have succeeded so far this session 
in a very bipartisan way. So I will not object because of the 
chairwoman's effort to get us to a conclusion. But I will be urging all 
of our colleagues to oppose all of those amendments because this is 
foreign policy on the fly. It is dangerous. We send very important 
messages when we cast votes in certain ways that can affect the balance 
of stability in the Middle East, that can affect our relationships 
across the world, that can affect our effectiveness in institutions 
that we need at the end of the day to promote our national security, 
our national interests.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I would hope that we would defeat these 
amendments. If there is no objection----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. We will then move to these amendments. Again, all 
Senators sit in your seats and vote. We will get through these as 
quickly as possible.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. I have an inquiry. I would like to make a unanimous consent 
request that we be able to use our electronic devices while we are 
sitting at our desks on the floor so that we might get any 
communication that we need from our staff, and also so we can be 
productive.
  Mr. REID. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The clerk will report the 
amendments en bloc.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes 
     amendments en bloc: For Mr. Barrasso, No. 184, for Mr. Paul 
     No. 382, for Mr. Vitter No. 526, for Mr. Vitter No. 338, for 
     Mr. Cruz No. 471, for Mr. Cruz No. 702, for Mr. Lee No. 673, 
     for Mr. Lee No. 521, for Mr. Coburn No. 414, for Mr. Coburn 
     No. 416, for Mr. Coburn No. 709, for Mr. Portman No. 154, for 
     Mr. Leahy No. 710, for Mr. Inhofe No. 139.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 184

   (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to expedite 
     exports from the United States through reform of the National 
 Environmental Policy Act of 1969 in such a manner that greenhouse gas 
emissions produced outside the United States by any good exported from 
   the United States are not subject to the requirements of that Act)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO EXPEDITE EXPORTS 
                   FROM THE UNITED STATES.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for 1 or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, motions, 
     or conference reports related to promoting the export of 
     goods, including manufactured goods, from the United States 
     through reform of environmental laws, which may include the 
     regulation of greenhouse gas emissions produced outside the 
     United States by goods exported from the United States, 
     without raising new revenue, by the amounts provided in the 
     legislation for those purposes, provided that the legislation 
     would not increase the deficit over either the period of the 
     total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the 
     total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 382

 (Purpose: To provide funding to the Department of Transportation for 
  interstate bridge infrastructure projects and to reduce the Federal 
deficit by decreasing the amounts available for foreign assistance and 
   loan guarantee programs administered by the Department of Energy)

       On page 5, line 9, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 12, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 13, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 14, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 15, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 16, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 17, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 18, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 23, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 24, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 25, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 6, line 1, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 6, line 2, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 6, line 3, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 6, line 4, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 6, line 5, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 6, line 6, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 6, line 7, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 6, line 12, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 6, line 13, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 6, line 14, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 6, line 15, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 6, line 16, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 6, line 17, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 6, line 18, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 6, line 19, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 6, line 20, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 6, line 21, reduce the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 15, line 7, reduce the amount by $15,000,000,000.
       On page 15, line 8, reduce the amount by $15,000,000,000.
       On page 15, line 11, reduce the amount by $15,000,000,000.
       On page 15, line 12, reduce the amount by $15,000,000,000.
       On page 15, line 15, reduce the amount by $15,000,000,000.
       On page 15, line 16, reduce the amount by $15,000,000,000.
       On page 15, line 19, reduce the amount by $15,000,000,000.
       On page 15, line 20, reduce the amount by $15,000,000,000.
       On page 15, line 23, reduce the amount by $15,000,000,000.
       On page 15, line 24, reduce the amount by $15,000,000,000.
       On page 16, line 2, reduce the amount by $15,000,000,000.
       On page 16, line 3, reduce the amount by $15,000,000,000.
       On page 16, line 6, reduce the amount by $15,000,000,000.
       On page 16, line 7, reduce the amount by $15,000,000,000.
       On page 16, line 10, reduce the amount by $15,000,000,000.
       On page 16, line 11, reduce the amount by $15,000,000,000.
       On page 16, line 14, reduce the amount by $15,000,000,000.
       On page 16, line 15, reduce the amount by $15,000,000,000.
       On page 16, line 18, reduce the amount by $15,000,000,000.
       On page 16, line 19, reduce the amount by $15,000,000,000.
       On page 18, line 23, reduce the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 18, line 24, reduce the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 19, line 2, reduce the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 19, line 3, reduce the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 19, line 6, reduce the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 19, line 7, reduce the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 19, line 10, reduce the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 19, line 11, reduce the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 19, line 14, reduce the amount by $1,000,000,000.

[[Page 4599]]

       On page 19, line 15, reduce the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 19, line 18, reduce the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 19, line 19, reduce the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 19, line 22, reduce the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 19, line 23, reduce the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 20, line 2, reduce the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 20, line 3, reduce the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 20, line 6, reduce the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 20, line 7, reduce the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 20, line 10, reduce the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 20, line 11, reduce the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 26, line 6, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 26, line 7, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 26, line 10, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 26, line 11, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 26, line 14, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 26, line 15, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 26, line 18, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 26, line 19, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 26, line 22, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 26, line 23, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 27, line 2, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 27, line 3, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 27, line 6, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 27, line 7, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 27, line 10, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 27, line 11, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 27, line 14, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 27, line 15, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 27, line 18, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 27, line 19, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 526

    (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to ensure 
election integrity by requiring a valid government-issued photographic 
                  ID for voting in federal elections)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO REQUIRE A 
                   PHOTOGRAPHIC ID FOR VOTING IN FEDERAL 
                   ELECTIONS.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     amendments between houses, motions, or conference reports 
     that would create a system for requiring a valid government-
     issued photographic ID for voting in federal elections 
     without raising new revenue, by the amounts provided in such 
     legislation for those purposes, provided that such 
     legislation would not increase the deficit over either the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 338

           (Purpose: To end the mobile phone welfare program)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR ENDING SUBSIDIES 
                   FOR MOBILE PHONE SERVICE.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     amendments between houses, motions, or conference reports 
     that would prohibit the Universal Service Fund from 
     subsidizing commercial mobile service, without raising new 
     revenue, by the amounts provided in such legislation for 
     those purposes, provided that such legislation would not 
     increase the deficit over either the period of the total of 
     fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the total of 
     fiscal years 2013 through 2023.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 471

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to reduce foreign 
  assistance to Egypt and increase funding for an east coast missile 
                            defense shield)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO REDUCE FOREIGN 
                   ASSISTANCE TO EGYPT AND INCREASE FUNDING FOR AN 
                   EAST COAST MISSILE DEFENSE SHIELD.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     motions, or conference reports relating to reducing foreign 
     assistance to Egypt and increasing funding for the Missile 
     Defense Agency to establish a land-based missile defense 
     capability on the east coast of the United States, by the 
     amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes, 
     provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit 
     over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 
     through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 
     through 2023.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 702

(Purpose: To create a point of order against any legislation that would 
 provide taxpayer funds to the United Nations while any member nation 
  forces citizens or residents of that nation to undergo involuntary 
                               abortions)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

      SEC. ___. SENATE POINT OF ORDER AGAINST LEGISLATION FUNDING 
                   THE UNITED NATIONS WHILE MEMBER NATIONS FORCE 
                   THEIR CITIZENS OR RESIDENTS TO UNDERGO 
                   ABORTIONS.

       (a) In General--It shall not be in order in the Senate to 
     consider a concurrent resolution on the budget for the budget 
     year or any amendment, amendment between Houses, motion, or 
     conference report thereon that would make public funds 
     available to the United Nations, or to any affiliate 
     organization of the United Nations, while any member nation 
     compels citizens or residents of that nation to involuntarily 
     undergo abortions in any year covered by the budget 
     resolution.
       (b) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal in the Senate--
       (1) WAIVER--This section may be waived or suspended in the 
     Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (2) APPEAL--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be 
     required in the Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of 
     the Chair on a point of order raised under this section.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 673

  (Purpose: To create a point of order against legislation that would 
 further restrict the right of law-abiding Americans to own a firearm)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST LEGISLATION THAT WOULD 
                   FURTHER RESTRICT THE RIGHT OF LAW-ABIDING 
                   AMERICANS TO OWN A FIREARM.

       (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate 
     to consider a concurrent resolution on the budget for the 
     budget year or any amendment, amendment between Houses, 
     motion, or conference report thereon that further restricts 
     the right of law-abiding individuals in the United States to 
     own a firearm in any year covered by the budget resolution.
       (b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``further 
     restriction on the right of law-abiding individuals in the 
     United States to own a firearm'' means any further 
     restriction on the right of law-abiding individuals in the 
     United States to own a firearm not contained in law prior to 
     the consideration of the concurrent resolution on the budget, 
     including but not limited to any legislation that--
       (1) prohibits, increases restrictions on, or regulates the 
     manufacture or ownership of any firearm that is permitted 
     under Federal law prior to the consideration of the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget;
       (2) prohibits the manufacture or possession of specified 
     categories of firearms based on the characteristics of such 
     firearms that are permitted to be manufacture or possessed 
     under Federal law prior to the consideration of the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget;
       (3) prohibits specific firearms or categories of firearms 
     that are permitted under Federal law prior to the 
     consideration of the concurrent resolution on the budget;
       (4) limits the size of ammunition feeding devices or 
     prohibits categories of ammunition feeding devices that are 
     permitted under Federal law prior to the consideration of the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget;
       (5) requires background checks through a Federal firearms 
     licensee for private transfers of firearms if the transfers 
     do not require a background check under Federal law prior to 
     the consideration of the concurrent resolution on the budget;
       (6) establishes a record-keeping system for the sale of 
     firearms not established prior to the consideration of the 
     concurrent resolution of the budget; or
       (7) imposes prison sentences for sales, gifts, or raffles 
     of firearms to veterans who are unknown to the transferor as 
     a person prohibited from possessing a firearm that would not 
     otherwise be imposed under Federal law prior to the 
     consideration of the concurrent resolution on the budget.
       (c) Super Majority Waiver and Appeal.--
       (1) Waiver.--In the Senate, subsection (a) may be waived or 
     suspended only by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the 
     Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (2) Appeal.--An affirmative vote of two-thirds of the 
     Members of the Senate, duly

[[Page 4600]]

     chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of 
     the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under 
     subsection (a).


                           AMENDMENT NO. 521

   (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to 
supporting the reauthorization of the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program 
 at levels roughly equivalent to property tax revenues lost due to the 
                       presence of Federal land)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO SUPPORTING 
                   THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF 
                   TAXES PROGRAM AT LEVELS ROUGHLY EQUIVALENT TO 
                   PROPERTY TAX REVENUES LOST DUE TO THE PRESENCE 
                   OF FEDERAL LAND.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for 1 or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports 
     relating to that make changes to or provide for the 
     reauthorization of the Payment in Lieu of Taxes program at 
     levels roughly equivalent to lost tax revenues due to the 
     presence of Federal land without raising new revenue, by the 
     amounts provided in the legislation for those purposes, 
     provided that the legislation would not increase the deficit 
     over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 
     through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 
     through 2023.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 414

  (Purpose: To create a deficit-neutral reserve fund to eliminate tax 
 loopholes and special interest tax breaks for the PGA tour, the NFL, 
 NASCAR, Hollywood, fish tackle box manufacturers, and Eskimo whaling 
                               captains)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND CLOSING TAX 
                   EXPENDITURES FOR THE PGA TOUR, THE NFL, NASCAR, 
                   HOLLYWOOD, FISH TACKLE BOX MANUFACTURERS, AND 
                   WHALING CAPTAINS.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels and limits in this 
     resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions, 
     amendments, amendments between the Houses, motions, or 
     conference reports related to closing certain tax 
     expenditures, by the amounts provided in such legislation for 
     those purposes, provided that such legislation would not 
     increase the deficit over either the period of the total of 
     fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the total of 
     fiscal years 2013 through 2023.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 416

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to eliminate non-
         defense related spending by the Department of Defense)

       At the appropriate place, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE PREVENTION OF 
                   NON-DEFENSE RELATED SPENDING BY THE DEPARTMENT 
                   OF DEFENSE.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     amendments between Houses, motions, or conference reports 
     related to the Department of Defense, which may include 
     measures eliminating non-defense related programs at the 
     Department, by the amounts provided in such legislation for 
     those purposes, provided that such legislation would not 
     increase the deficit over either the period of the total of 
     fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the total of 
     fiscal years 2013 through 2023.


                           amendment no. 709

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


                           AMENDMENT NO. 154

    (Purpose: To require the Congressional Budget Office to include 
           macroeconomic feedback scoring of tax legislation)

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

     SEC. 4__. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATES.

       (a) Request for Supplemental Estimates.--In the case of any 
     legislative provision to which this section applies, the 
     Congressional Budget Office, with the assistance of the Joint 
     Committee on Taxation, shall prepare, to the extent 
     practicable, as a supplement to the cost estimate for 
     legislation affecting revenues, an estimate of the revenue 
     changes in connection with such provision that incorporates 
     the macroeconomic effects of the policy being analyzed. Any 
     macroeconomic impact statement under the preceding sentence 
     shall be accompanied by a written statement fully disclosing 
     the economic, technical, and behavioral assumptions that were 
     made in producing--
       (1) such estimate; and
       (2) the conventional estimate in connection with such 
     provision.
       (b) Legislative Provisions to Which This Section Applies.--
     This section shall apply to any legislative provision--
       (1) which proposes a change or changes to law that the 
     Congressional Budget Office determines, pursuant to a 
     conventional fiscal estimate, has a revenue impact in excess 
     of $5,000,000,000 in any fiscal year; or
       (2) with respect to which the chair or ranking member of 
     the Committee on the Budget of either the Senate or the House 
     of Representatives has requested an estimate described in 
     subsection (a).


                           AMENDMENT NO. 710

 (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to ensure that 
 the United States will not negotiate or support treaties that violate 
Americans' Second Amendment rights under the Constitution of the United 
                                States)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO ENSURE THAT THE 
                   UNITED STATES WILL NOT NEGOTIATE OR SUPPORT 
                   TREATIES THAT VIOLATE AMERICANS' SECOND 
                   AMENDMENT RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE 
                   UNITED STATES.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports 
     relating to the implementation of treaties, including 
     upholding the constitutional rights of citizens of the United 
     States when treaties are negotiated, by the amounts provided 
     in such legislation for those purposes, provided that such 
     legislation would not increase the deficit over either the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 139

  (Purpose: To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United 
    States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO UPHOLD SECOND 
                   AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND PREVENT THE UNITED STATES 
                   FROM ENTERING INTO THE UNITED NATIONS ARMS 
                   TRADE TREATY.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     motions, or conference reports that relate to upholding 
     Second Amendment rights, which shall include preventing the 
     United States from entering into the United Nations Arms 
     Trade Treaty, by the amounts provided in such legislation for 
     those purposes, provided that such legislation would not 
     increase the deficit or revenues over either the period of 
     the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of 
     the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.


                           Amendment No. 184

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Durbin.) There is now 2 minutes equally 
divided prior to a vote.
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, in 2010, President Obama set forth a 
goal of doubling our Nation's exports in 5 years. Three years later we 
are not on the pace to achieve that goal. One problem is the EPA is 
blocking exports. EPA is blocking exports on account of the greenhouse 
gas emissions those exports would produce outside of the United States; 
that is after they leave our shores.
  This is a dangerous precedent. It will hurt exports of automobiles, 
aircraft, and heavy equipment such as tractors. This amendment 
prohibits Federal agencies from blocking exports on account of 
greenhouse gas emissions those exports would produce after they leave 
the United States.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, before we go to the yeas and nays, can I 
just say, in setting an example for the evening, I will be less than 1 
minute. We believe this is current law. We will accept a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays were already ordered on this 
amendment. Does the Senator from Wyoming seek recognition?
  Mr. BARRASSO. A voice vote will be acceptable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the yeas and nays are 
vitiated.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 184) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 382

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. On behalf of Senator McConnell and myself, I have to 
introduce this amendment to create a

[[Page 4601]]

bridges fund. We have done considerable nation building abroad. I think 
it is time we do some nation building at home.
  We have two bridges in our State, Brent Spence as well as the Sherman 
Minton Bridge, that need to be repaired and replaced. We do not have 
enough money in our highway trust fund. This would create a new bridges 
fund. It would come from money we are currently sending overseas to 
build bridges overseas. So it would bring foreign aid money back home 
to the United States where it is needed. It would also take some money 
from the Department of Energy loans, which I think can be more useful 
at home to build bridges.
  So I urge adoption of this amendment which would allow a new creation 
of a bridges fund, which I think our country desperately needs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senate budget resolution that is in front of us, 
that we are hoping to get passed tonight, provides strong investments 
in transportation infrastructure. It fully funds MAP-21, the recent 
highway bill. It provides $50 billion for urgent transportation needs 
and another $10 billion for an infrastructure bank.
  We could put more funding toward transportation projects and fund 
some good projects but not without making cuts to other vital programs. 
The amendment before us will make unnecessary and deep cuts to foreign 
aid and energy programs. I oppose this amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine) and 
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 26, nays 72, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 82 Leg.]

                                YEAS--26

     Barrasso
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Inhofe
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter

                                NAYS--72

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Kaine
     Lautenberg
       
  The amendment (No. 382) was rejected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WYDEN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 526

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, there is 2 minutes equally 
divided prior to a vote on amendment No. 526 offered by Mr. Vitter.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this amendment would require photo IDs to 
participate in Federal elections, which is allowed now by States. 
However, the Justice Department is trying to virtually shut down this 
practice unreasonably by opposing it in many States. This would be a 
clarification to mandate the Federal IDs, just as we do in many other 
less consequential acts such as air travel.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Voter photo identification laws are overly burdensome 
and have the ability to disenfranchise voters. We should not attempt to 
implement these policies nationwide, especially at 3:15 in the morning 
on a budget resolution.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine) and 
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 83 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--54

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Kaine
     Lautenberg
       
  The amendment (No. 526) was rejected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 338

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are two amendments equally divided prior 
to a vote on amendment No. 338 offered by Mr. Vitter.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I would just note there is nothing in a unanimous 
consent which precludes a Senator from withdrawing an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair thanks the Senator from Washington.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. I certainly thank the honorable chairwoman for that kind 
note, but I do wish to move forward with my amendment.
  This amendment is simple. It ends the cell phone welfare entitlement. 
I yield back my time and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Access to a telephone is beneficial for anyone trying to 
get a job or attempting to communicate with their family or receiving 
help in an emergency. Since 1985, the Lifeline

[[Page 4602]]

Program has made it easier for low-income Americans to have a phone by 
providing a small monthly subsidy toward basic service. The program has 
seen an influx in new users over the past several years after the 
eligibility expanded to include mobile phones.
  The FCC issued an order in January 2012 to attack waste, fraud, and 
abuse in the program, and that order has been successful.
  I recommend my colleagues oppose this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 84 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--53

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The amendment (No. 338) was rejected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 471

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes equally divided prior to 
the vote on amendment No. 471 offered by Mr. Cruz.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, this amendment would create a deficit-
neutral reserve fund to reduce foreign assistance to Egypt and to 
increase funding for an east coast missile defense shield.
  Just 2 weeks ago, the Secretary of State announced he had freed an 
additional $250 million in an unconditional economic support fund for 
the Government of Egypt. This was in the midst of the sequester and at 
the same time the American people were told there were insufficient 
funds to pay for police officers, firefighters and teachers, and even 
White House tours.
  All of us are concerned about the situation in Egypt--a nation that, 
among other things, has repeatedly turned a blind eye to the abuse of 
women and to the persecution of Christians.
  Last week the European Union threatened to hold its 5 million euro 
pledge of economic aid to Egypt absent meaningful reforms. We should do 
at least as well as the EU. This amendment would reduce, in an 
unspecified amount, the foreign aid to Egypt and allow that money to be 
put to vital national security ends here at home; namely, missile 
defense.
  I ask the amendment be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield my time to the Senator from New 
Jersey, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, that money the Senator referred to was 
money that was already existing and it was at a critical time.
  The United States and Egypt have a longstanding security relationship 
that is vital to the stability of the Middle East and the security of 
the region. Our aid to Egypt is tied directly to the Camp David Accord 
which has acted to stabilize the Middle East and has helped to serve 
America and Israel's security for the past 35 years. It is vital and it 
can't be put at risk.
  We also have significant interests in Egypt in countering terrorism, 
addressing the deteriorating security in the Sinai, and maintaining 
preferential access to the Suez Canal.
  We cannot give the Egyptian leaders a blank check, but we also cannot 
have a collapse of the Egyptian economy which Israel would face the 
immediate consequences of.
  This is the type of amendment that does not consider the checks and 
balances necessary and the complexities of the issue, which we will 
handle in the committee.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. CRUZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 25, nays 74, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 85 Leg.]

                                YEAS--25

     Barrasso
     Burr
     Coburn
     Collins
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Heller
     Inhofe
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     Moran
     Paul
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter

                                NAYS--74

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The amendment (No. 471) was rejected.


                           Amendment No. 702

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes equally divided prior to 
the vote on amendment No. 702 offered by Mr. Cruz.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, this amendment would create a budget point 
of order prohibiting any measure that provides taxpayer funds to the 
United Nations while any member nation forces citizens to undergo 
involuntary abortions.
  I recognize Members of this body have differing views on the right to 
life, but surely all of us can be agreed that for a woman to be forced 
against her will to abort her child is a horrific evil. Yet the world 
was shocked when photographs surfaced last year of 23-year-old Feng 
Jianmei and her aborted child.
  China recently acknowledged under its one-child policy it has carried 
out

[[Page 4603]]

336 million abortions, more than the entire population of the United 
States. Those are 336 million lives that never breathed a breath of 
life on this Earth.
  In 1997, the House passed a Forced Abortion Condemnation Act that, 
unfortunately, died in the Senate. This body should condemn that 
policy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield my time to the chairman of the 
Foreign Relations Committee, the Senator from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, no one--no one--in this body supports 
forced abortions. No one. However, the United Nations has no authority 
to control the acts of any individual nation.
  Instead of punishing the country that is carrying out the bad policy, 
this amendment would go after an entity that has no control over the 
policy and all the while negatively impacting our national interests 
because it takes away all funding to the United Nations if such a 
member country is engaged in such acts. It would impact funding for 
peacekeeping operations in the Golan Heights, in Darfur, in Congo; 
funding for Syrian refugees, which now exceeds 1 million and is 
threatening the political and economic instability of Jordan and 
Lebanon; funding to the International Atomic Energy Agency that we need 
to go after Iran.
  These are all reasons this amendment should be voted against.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. CRUZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 38, nays 61, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 86 Leg.]

                                YEAS--38

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     Manchin
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter

                                NAYS--61

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The amendment (No. 702) was rejected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 673

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior 
to a vote on amendment No. 673, offered by Mr. Lee.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, my amendment would establish a point of order 
for any piece of legislation brought before this body that would 
undermine the sacred right protected by the second amendment to bear 
arms. It is important that we safeguard this right so the government 
doesn't intrude upon it. That is why I have introduced this amendment, 
and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending 
amendment is not germane. The underlying resolution therefore violates 
section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I move to waive section 305(b)(2) of the 
Congressional Budget Act for the consideration of the pending amendment 
No. 673 pursuant to section 904(c) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 87 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--49

     Baldwin
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cowan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 50 and the nays are 
49. Three-fifths of the Senators not having voted in the affirmative, 
the motion is not agreed to, the point of order is sustained, and the 
amendment falls.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 521

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, there is now 2 minutes 
equally divided prior to a vote on amendment No. 521, offered by Mr. 
Lee.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program was 
established to compensate local taxing authorities, such as counties, 
for the tax revenue lost due to the presence of Federal public land. 
Unfortunately, the funding for this program has never been offered to 
the degree necessary that it would, in fact, offset this revenue. In 
States such as mine, where most of the land is owned by the Federal 
Government, this is a big problem because our taxing authorities are 
not able to get the revenue they need from this land. As a result, 
programs ranging from public education to fire and safety programs--the 
basic services of government--are not able to be met because of 
inadequate revenue.
  This amendment seeks to ensure that funding for the Payments in Lieu 
of Taxes Program is at least roughly equivalent to the actual lost 
property

[[Page 4604]]

tax revenues due to the presence of Federal public land. I urge each of 
my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. We will take this on a voice vote.
  Mr. LEE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would ask that the Senator accommodate 
us. We are willing to give it to him.
  Mr. LEE. Let's do it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 521) was agreed to.


                      Amendment No. 414 withdrawn

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior 
to a vote on amendment No. 414, offered by Mr. Coburn.
  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 416

  There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior to a vote on amendment 
No. 416, offered by Mr. Coburn. The Senator from Oklahoma is 
recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, with a lot of consternation, we are 
worried about how the sequester affects everybody--the Defense 
Department and all the other agencies. But in fact the Pentagon spends 
$67 billion on things that have absolutely nothing to do with defense. 
All we will be doing is creating a deficit-neutral reserve fund to move 
this nondefense spending--either move it or eliminate it from the 
Defense Department.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it is important to reduce wasteful 
spending and ensure all Federal funding is spent efficiently and 
effectively. The budget resolution is not the appropriate place for 
funding decisions at a subprogrammatic level.
  I recommend we oppose the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. COBURN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 88 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--56

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The amendment (No. 416) was rejected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                       Thanking the Senate Pages

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, before we go to the next vote, I would 
like to thank all the pages. They have been here all night working, and 
I would like to thank them: Austin Hall, Patrick Irby-Bailey, Emma 
Duhnke, Andrew Brennen, Stewart Maxfield, Brittany Robertson, and Katie 
Robinson.
  (Applause, Senators rising.)


                           Amendment No. 709

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes equally divided prior to a 
vote on amendment No. 709, offered by Mr. Coburn.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, 3\1/2\ years ago we instructed the GAO to 
tell us where the government problems were, what are the government 
programs, and where was there duplication. We have yet to pass one 
piece of legislation that would eliminate any of the duplication in the 
Federal Government--not one. What this does is combine 17 different 
amendments that I had offered on this budget to create a deficit-
neutral reserve fund to cause us--to force us--to look at all these 
programs by area and consolidate them.
  What this amendment would do, very specifically--it doesn't say you 
eliminate; it says you consolidate. You get efficiency, you get 
effectiveness, and you look to make sure when we are spending tax 
dollars that they are actually accomplishing something and they are 
doing it in the most efficient and effective ways.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. The budget already includes a deficit reduction reserve 
fund for the elimination, consolidation, and reform of Federal programs 
to achieve savings. Our budget goes even further to instruct committees 
to review the GAO report on duplication and asks committees to use this 
information to reduce overlap and identify efficiencies. The budget 
does not single out individual programs because we believe that sorting 
through duplication should be the role of our authorizing committees. 
That is why we have specifically instructed committees to review GAO's 
findings on duplication in their high-risk list.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 89 Leg.]

                                YEAS--62

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Nelson
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wicker

                                NAYS--37

     Baldwin
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Coons
     Cowan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)

[[Page 4605]]


     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The amendment (No. 709) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 154

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form prior to a vote in 
relation to amendment No. 154, offered by Mr. Portman.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, this should be an easy one. It is simply 
an amendment that says that here in the Senate we should have better 
information to be able to legislate better. By the way, it is 
information that the House of Representatives already has. Surely we 
would want to have the same information in the Senate that the House of 
Representatives as they pursue tax reform.
  This says the Congressional Budget Office should provide the Joint 
Tax Committee macroeconomic analysis of tax reform. It only applies to 
tax bills over a certain amount, $5 billion a year. I worked with the 
Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office to 
ensure this would not require more work because the analysis is already 
done, but it is not provided to us.
  Under a 2003 rule in the House, it is provided to the Ways and Means 
Committee. It is required to be provided but not to us. We heard a lot 
of discussion over the last several days about the need for tax 
reform--Democrats and Republicans agree on that--and we agree it ought 
to be progrowth. The President called for it. This would enable us to 
legislate more wisely.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield to the Chair of the Finance Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the amendment requires something called 
dynamic scoring. The Joint Committee on Tax, which provides us with 
information on how to score revenue measures, uses conventional 
scoring, and has been doing this for years and years. And they do 
utilize the secondary effects when they do conventional scoring.
  Dynamic scoring goes many steps farther. It tries to dissipate the 
macroeconomic effect down the road, which is basically what Ben 
Bernanke does. It is very difficult and arbitrary and very hard to do. 
It would cause great swings. It may be close to the mark, it may be off 
the mark.
  In addition, this amendment required dynamic scoring only with 
respect to revenue measures, but not required with respect to spending 
measures. When CBO does spending, they use conventional scoring. I 
might also say that in the footnote, the Joint Committee on Tax already 
gives its best guess of what the dynamic scoring would be, although 
that is not the numbers they use when they try to estimate the revenue 
effect.
  I think it would be a big mistake to do that at this time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 90 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Begich
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kaine
     Kirk
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--48

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The amendment (No. 154) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 710

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form prior to a vote in 
relation to amendment No. 710 offered by Mr. Leahy.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this amendment is very clear, and it 
anticipates another amendment coming up by another Senator. The United 
States negotiates treaties, for example, the Arms Trade Treaty. But 
under the Supreme Court, Reid v. Covert, 1956, our Constitution trumps 
any agreement made in a treaty by our government.
  So all my amendment does is make clear that the United States should 
not agree to any arms trade treaty that would violate our second 
amendment rights. It is straightforward, it respects our constitutional 
rights, but it also gives our government the flexibility it needs to 
negotiate treaties.
  I would be happy with a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I think this is a good amendment. I want 
to make it very clear that this has nothing to do with my amendment No. 
139, which comes up next. This is merely talking about negotiating 
treaties. Mine is about opposing second amendment rights.
  I have no objection to taking this by voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 710) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                           Amendment No. 525

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, before going to the next amendment, I 
have one unanimous consent request. Senator Sessions and I have been 
able to clear Durbin-Moran amendment No. 525. I ask unanimous consent 
that it be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 525) was agreed to, as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 525

   (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to increase 
             funding for the National Institutes of Health)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO INCREASE FUNDING 
                   FOR FEDERAL INVESTMENTS IN BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     motions, or conference reports related to Federal investments 
     in biomedical research, by the amounts provided in such 
     legislation for those purposes, provided that such 
     legislation would not increase the deficit over either the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.


                           Amendment No. 139

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes equally divided in the usual

[[Page 4606]]

form prior to our final vote on amendment No. 139 offered by Mr. 
Inhofe.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I want to make sure that everyone 
understands what the United Nations trade treaty is. The trade treaty 
is a treaty that cedes our authority to have trade agreements with our 
allies in terms of trading arms.
  I want to very briefly read this so nobody over there or over here 
misunderstands what this amendment does. This is right out of the 
amendment. Uphold the second amendment rights, that is one thing. And 
secondly, prevent the United States from entering into the United 
Nations arms trade treaties.
  I retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield to the Chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we are presently negotiating an arms trade 
treaty which will help to keep illicit firearms out of the hands of war 
criminals and terrorists. It is a humanitarian issue. We have people 
such as Joseph Kony who is out murdering children. He is able to do it 
because he is taking part in the international arms trade. We are 
trying to stop those things.
  My earlier amendment makes it very clear, we cannot trump our own 
second-amendment rights, but we can stop these children from being 
killed because of this, and that is why I oppose the Inhofe amendment. 
Let our negotiators negotiate. Any treaty still has to come back here 
to get a two-thirds vote anyway.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has 18 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, the idea that we would have 
to go to the international body to decide whether we would trade arms 
with Israel is pretty disgusting. I want to make sure everyone 
understands. This is the first time--probably the last time this year 
that we are going to have a chance, an opportunity to vote for our 
second amendment rights. I think my colleagues should take advantage of 
it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 91 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Begich
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--46

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cowan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harkin
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is now 2 minutes equally divided 
prior to a vote on the concurrent resolution.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, first of all, over the last two decades the 
average budget resolution considered 78 amendments. We have done 101. 
The average vote-arama is 35 amendments. We have done 70--twice as 
many. Doing this has been a Herculean feat, but it has been done by the 
leadership of Senator Murray, with Senator Sessions. I think we all 
should recognize how hard this has been for Senator Murray.
  (Senators applauding.)
  Mr. McCONNELL. Would the majority leader yield?
  Mr. REID. Yes, of course. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I want to commend Senator Murray, 
Senator Sessions, and the majority leader for conducting an open and 
complete and full debate. I know everyone is exhausted, and people may 
not feel it at the moment, but this is one of the Senate's finest days 
in recent years, and I commend everyone who has participated in this 
extraordinary debate.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we don't have to have a quorum call. We are 
not going to be voting from our desks, so everybody can go back to 
regular disorder.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There will now be 2 minutes for debate 
equally divided prior to a vote on the concurrent resolution.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. It is late--early in the morning. I want to take this 
opportunity to thank my colleague Senator Sessions for a vigorous 
debate and for all of our colleagues participating in this debate. I am 
very proud of my colleagues. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have so enjoyed working with the 
chairman. She has done a great job. She has managed this group as we 
needed to be managed.
  I am disappointed in the budget. It does not do the job for our 
times.
  I thank the Chair and look forward to the vote.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 
concurrent resolution, as amended.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 92 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--49

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 8), as amended, was agreed 
to.
  (The concurrent resolution will be printed in a future edition of the 
Record.)
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page 4607]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, the Senate has passed a budget. I want 
to thank all of my colleagues. I especially want to thank our staff who 
have literally spent weeks and weeks and days and hours on this--Evan 
Schatz and Mike Spahn and John Righter and the others who are sitting 
behind us tonight--as well as Senator Sessions and all of his staff.
  It is a tribute to their hard work and my lost voice that we are 
sitting here tonight ready to take the next step to get our country 
back on a better fiscal path.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I also would like to thank the staff. 
My group is here. And I say to Senator Murray, your team is fabulous.
  We work hard on bills that come through the Senate, and there are a 
lot of challenges. But few are bigger than this, with all these 
amendments--hundreds of them that came through--and it was a real 
challenge.
  I congratulate the staff, I congratulate the Senator's team, and I 
hope we can continue to have good relations as we go forward and work 
together.
  I would mention Marcus Peacock, my staff director, who was fabulous. 
He enjoyed every minute of this. I asked him how he was doing, and he 
said: I am going to be sorry tomorrow when it is over. But maybe that 
is a sign of sickness. I do not know.
  I want to express my appreciation to my staff: Dan Kowalski, Bill 
Beach, Greg D'Angelo, Gene Emmans, George Everly, Matt Giroux, Brittany 
Godwin, Tori Gorman, Graham Hixon, Andrew Herther, Chris Jackson, Cari 
Kelly, Joseph McCormack, Greg McNeill, Carlton Milsap, Marcus Peacock, 
Kim Proctor, John Selden, William Smith, Paul Winfree, Stephen Miller, 
Andrew Logan, Garrett Murch, and Katie Moses. I think that is 
everybody. Tori Gorman has been back there in the center of that zoo 
and did a great job for us trying to work on these amendments.
  So, again, I would like to thank Senator Murray for her leadership, 
helping us get through this difficult time, and it is good to say that 
as of this time, 5 a.m., there has not been a day without a budget 
being passed in the Senate.
  (Laughter.)
  Mrs. MURRAY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________