[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 19441-19473]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   RESTORING AMERICANS' HEALTHCARE FREEDOM RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2015

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 3762, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3762) to provide for reconciliation pursuant 
     to section 2002 of the concurrent resolution on the budget 
     for fiscal year 2016.

  Pending:

       McConnell amendment No. 2874, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Murray/Wyden amendment No. 2876 (to amendment No. 2874), to 
     ensure that this Act does not increase the number of 
     uninsured women or increase the number of unintended 
     pregnancies by establishing a women's health care and clinic 
     security and safety fund.
       Johnson amendment No. 2875 (to amendment No. 2874), to 
     amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to 
     ensure that individuals can keep their health insurance 
     coverage.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could interrupt and apologize for that, 
I ask unanimous consent that the time in quorums called by the Chair be 
divided equally between the majority and minority.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the time until 1:30 p.m. will be equally 
divided in the usual form.
  Mr. DURBIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Criminal Justice Reform

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this morning I will be joining--at the 
President's invitation--a bipartisan group of Congressmen and Senators 
to discuss the need for criminal justice reform in the country. I am 
actually very glad the President has shown such an interest in this 
topic, one we have been working on in the Congress for a number of 
years.
  I have said it before and I will say it again, I don't agree with the 
President on a lot of things, perhaps most things, but I am glad to 
know he is making this issue a priority. I think it is one of those 
rare, magical moments where you see things coming together on a 
bipartisan basis across the political spectrum, where we can actually 
make some real progress that will benefit the American people and make 
our criminal justice system fairer and more effective.
  Of course, in the Senate, a diverse bipartisan group has shared this 
concern for a very long time. While I appreciate the President's vocal 
support and for convening the group to discuss it this morning, I want 
to make it clear that this legislation has been years in the making. 
Actually, the impetus for the part I contributed to the bill emanated 
from a 2007 experiment in Texas in prison reform. That legislation has 
manifested itself in the Senate and is now called the Sentencing Reform 
and Corrections Act of 2015. It is a result of a lot of hard work and 
some compromise, which is the only way things actually get done around 
here in order to build a bipartisan consensus, and it brings targeted 
and much needed reforms to the Federal justice system.
  I am very glad to be able to join with the junior Senator from Rhode 
Island, somebody, again, who is probably at the opposite end of the 
political spectrum from me in terms of ideology, but we have found 
common ground on this important prison reform component.
  Most prisoners will eventually be released into society, which is 
something we have forgotten. Unfortunately, our prisons have too often 
become warehouses for human beings, and we have forgotten the reality 
that many of them will be released back into society. Yet we have done 
very little to help prepare them to successfully reenter society rather 
than get into that turnstile that sometimes characterizes our criminal 
justice system and many end up right back in prison again. We can't 
save everybody, but I believe we can offer an opportunity for some who 
want to save themselves to improve themselves and be better prepared to 
reenter society as productive individuals.
  As I said, this reform was based on an experiment in Texas starting 
back in 2007. People perhaps think of Texas as being tough on crime, 
and indeed we are, but we finally realized we also have to be smart on 
crime. Prisons cost money. Every time somebody reoffends and ends up 
back in the prison system, we have to pay the salaries of prosecutors, 
public defenders, judges, and others, and that is expensive. If we can 
find a way to be fiscally more responsible and actually be more 
effective when it comes to the results, we ought to grab that 
opportunity. I happen to think it represents the way we ought to 
legislate here in Washington, DC, that is based on successful 
experiments in the States.
  It is no coincidence that Louis Brandeis once called the States the 
laboratories of democracy, but it represents the opposite of what we 
have seen here in Washington, DC, when, for example, in ObamaCare the 
President decides we are going to take over one-sixth of the U.S. 
economy and we are going to mandate from Washington a one-size-fits-all 
approach for 320 million or so Americans. It just doesn't work, as we 
have documented time and time again on the floor.
  I am optimistic we have found an area where we can work with the 
President and move this legislation forward. I ask that the President 
roll up his

[[Page 19442]]

sleeves and work with us, along with the Democrats and both Houses of 
Congress, so we can make this criminal justice reform a reality.
  Mr. President, I mentioned ObamaCare. That is my second topic for 
today.
  This afternoon we will keep a promise we made to the American people 
that we will vote to repeal ObamaCare. ObamaCare--were this legislation 
signed into law--could not sustain this mortal wound that is going to 
be inflicted this afternoon. Are we doing this for partisan reasons? I 
would say, no, absolutely not. What we are doing is listening to our 
constituents who told us that they have had one bad experience after 
another with ObamaCare. They have been forced by the Federal Government 
to buy coverage that they don't want, don't need, and can't afford. So 
we proposed to send a bill to the President that would repeal ObamaCare 
and then replace it with affordable coverage that people actually want. 
We made it clear to the American people that if they gave us the 
privilege of leading in the Congress, we would keep this promise, and 
we will fulfill that promise in the Senate today.
  I remember voting at 7 a.m. on Christmas Eve in 2009, when 60 
Democrats voted to jam ObamaCare down the throats of the American 
people. They made promise after promise. The President himself said: If 
you like what you have, you can keep it. That proved not to be true. 
The President said a family of four would see an average reduction in 
their premium cost by $2,500, and that wasn't true.
  So as somebody who has spent a little bit of time in law enforcement 
as a former attorney general in my State, I would call this a deceptive 
trade practice. This is defrauding the American people, selling them a 
product based on a set of promises that ends up not being true.
  I believe it is time to repeal this bad law and to replace it with 
something that people want and that they can afford.
  My State has been hit hard, as all States have been, including the 
State of the Presiding Officer, by the effects of ObamaCare. Almost 
every day we read news accounts of escalating health care costs, 
including premiums and fewer choices and options and less access for 
our constituents.
  Just recently, the Houston Chronicle reported that next year the 
Houston-area patients won't have access to any plans on the ObamaCare 
exchange that cover costs at MD Anderson, the premier cancer-treating 
facility in America. If we can't buy insurance to cover catastrophic 
events like cancer at the hospital of our choice, what good is it?
  As a matter of fact, I remember our former colleague, Senator Tom 
Coburn from Oklahoma, who has used up most of his nine lives, but he 
has experienced cancer at least three times, to my recollection, and he 
actually was seeking treatment at MD Anderson. He said that as a result 
of ObamaCare, he could no longer get coverage from the insurance policy 
he had because MD Anderson wasn't an acceptable provider under the 
ObamaCare policy.
  So today I will provide a very quick snapshot of the thousands of 
letters I have received, and I am sure they are typical of the letters 
we have all received from our constituents about the problems they have 
encountered with ObamaCare.
  One of my constituents recently wrote to me to tell me her story, and 
it is similar to the narrative I have heard from many others. Her 
insurance plan was canceled last fall because it didn't meet the 
mandates of ObamaCare. As a result, she had to switch to a more 
expensive policy, one with a higher monthly payment and an $11,000 
deductible. What good is it to have an insurance policy with an $11,000 
deductible? How many Americans can self-insure and pay that bill so 
that they can take advantage of what limited coverage they actually 
have under such a policy?
  She went on to say that she was notified that her plan would once 
again be terminated for the next year, and her monthly costs would go 
up again as a result. To top it off, she would end up losing her 
primary care provider. In other words, the doctor she preferred would 
no longer be available to her under this new policy that she would be 
forced to buy at a higher price.
  She is like a lot of folks around the country--full of questions and 
frustrations and seemingly nowhere to turn to find any relief for her 
spouse, for her children, or for their small business.
  This particular constituent implored me and Congress to do something 
about it. She said: ``Senator Cornyn, this has caused turmoil 
throughout Texas . . . we are terrorized in our own country by the so-
called benefit of the Affordable Care Act.'' Those are her words, not 
mine. She said her family was terrorized by ObamaCare.
  The strong message she conveyed is not all that different from what I 
have heard from other people. Another constituent raised a similar 
issue. He is now, for the third time in as many years, searching for 
yet another health insurance plan after his was canceled. He went on to 
highlight another theme that is impossible to miss when I talk to folks 
back home about this topic. He said:

       I seem to remember the President saying something about 
     liking your insurance and being able to keep it? For myself 
     and my family it's been just the opposite. We loved our 
     insurance prior to the passage of the act and have since been 
     forced to purchase much more expensive insurance with much 
     higher deductibles.

  Well, he is right. And in just a few hours we are going to have a 
chance to vote on the Johnson amendment to this legislation we are 
considering, which is an ``If you like it, you can keep it'' amendment, 
to keep that guarantee. We will see how our friends on the other side 
of the aisle vote, who forced this flawed legislation down the throats 
of the American people, based on this experience.
  Just like many other Texans, the people I have talked about back home 
have seen their premiums and their deductibles skyrocket to 
unaffordable levels. Along with this anemic economy and flat wages, 
people have found themselves with less and less money in their pockets 
and found themselves with a decreased and diminished standard of 
living, which has caused a lot of frustration.
  This particular constituent ended his letter to me by asking the 
Members of Congress to ``do anything within your power to reverse this 
terrible healthcare trend. . . . I need relief,'' he said.
  We have reached a pretty scary time in our Nation's history when we 
have Americans writing and calling their elected representatives saying 
they need relief from their own government. The threat is not outside; 
people are being threatened by their own government and the overreach 
they see and the negative impact it has on their quality of life and 
their standard of living.
  So we have a duty now--we have a mandate, I believe--to repeal this 
terrible law and to make it a relic of the past, and we are going to do 
our duty. We are going to keep our promise to the American people 
today.
  There was an outcry from my constituents back home on another topic 
that gripped our attention--the horrific videos released showing 
Planned Parenthood executives callously discussing the harvesting of 
organs from unborn children. We seem to have forgotten those terrible 
videos and what they have depicted.
  This bill will also do something to defund Planned Parenthood and 
redirect those funds to the many community health centers that exist in 
Texas and across the country that day in and day out diligently provide 
health care to people in my State and around the country. There will be 
no less money directed toward public health care; it will be redirected 
away from Planned Parenthood and to the community health centers.
  By the way, there are a whole lot more community health centers, so 
there will actually be improved access for most Americans at community 
health centers.
  By repealing ObamaCare, we are doing more than just delivering on a 
promise; we are providing a way forward for millions of Americans 
around this country who have been hurt--not helped but hurt--by 
ObamaCare. We will do our best to help them find some

[[Page 19443]]

relief, as one of my constituents whom I just quoted implored.
  We look forward to passing this legislation to scrap ObamaCare and to 
bring this country one step closer to making it history.
  Again, this isn't just about repealing ObamaCare; this is about 
replacing it with coverage that people want and that suits their 
personal needs at a price they can afford. One would have thought that 
health care reform would be about making health care more affordable, 
but, in fact, ObamaCare was just the opposite. It made it more 
expensive and less affordable, as we have seen and as I have tried to 
point out in my remarks.
  I don't see any other Senator seeking recognition, so I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Tragedy in San Bernardino

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, when I woke up this morning, I had hoped 
that yesterday's tragedy in San Bernardino was just an unimaginable 
nightmare. Then, as I usually do in the morning, I went through the 
clips from my State and I read the headlines:
  ``Bloodbath in San Bernardino.''
  ``14 slain at California office party.''
  ``Carnage in California.''
  ``Shooting Rampage Sows Terror in California.''
  ``At Least 14 Dead in Mass Shooting.''
  ``Deadly rampage at holiday party.''
  ``A Day of Horror.''
  ``Horror Hits Home.''
  ```Horrific'.'' Just one word.
  ``Masked Mass Murder.''
  These are papers all over my State and a couple of national 
headlines.
  My heart is broken after this rampage that led to the tragic loss of 
life, so many injuries, so much trauma and pain for the people of San 
Bernardino.
  I thank the medical personnel who are working as we speak to save 
lives and all the brave, courageous law enforcement officers who rushed 
to the scene and later stopped these killers.
  We know the victims in this attack were county employees at the San 
Bernardino Department of Public Health. I began my career as a county 
supervisor, and I oversaw in Marin County the Department of Public 
Health. I know how dedicated those county employees are. They are right 
there. They are right there in the communities. And the facility was 
dedicated to helping disabled people. So for this to happen at a 
holiday party where these employees were gathering in friendship--it is 
a stunning shock.
  While details about the motive behind this despicable attack are 
still unknown, here is what we do know: Because these killers used 
military-style weapons, 14 people died and 17 people were wounded in a 
matter of minutes.
  The purpose of these guns, these military-style guns, is to kill a 
lot of people very fast. The scene looked like a war zone, and there is 
a reason for that--again, because these weapons are designed for the 
military. They are designed for the police.
  I have to be honest with my colleagues: I have never heard one 
persuasive argument about why anyone else would need to have this type 
of weapon. These weapons of war just don't belong on our streets and in 
our communities. My colleague Senator Feinstein for years has been 
pushing sensible legislation that would keep these military-style 
weapons off our streets. We need to stand with her. We need to stand 
with her across party lines and pass it.
  It is so discouraging that we can't even pass legislation here that 
would keep suspected terrorists who are on the no-fly list from legally 
buying a weapon--any kind of a weapon.
  It isn't enough for us to keep lamenting these tragedies; we need to 
take action now, before something else like this happens again in the 
Presiding Officer's State, in my State. When we take an oath of office, 
we swear that we will protect and defend the American people. I just 
don't think we are protecting them when we allow these types of weapons 
to get into the wrong hands.
  This year we are averaging more than one mass shooting every single 
day--multiple people killed by guns, innocent people, every day. This 
is America. This doesn't happen in other industrialized nations. 
Thirty-one people die every day from gun violence. After 10 years of 
the Vietnam war, we lost nearly 60,000 Americans, and people were in 
despair. We lose more than that in gun violence in less than 2 years in 
this great Nation. If there were anything else that caused the death of 
30,000 Americans a year, every single Senator would be in their chair 
and we would be demanding action and we would be crossing over party 
lines to stop it because that, my friends, is an epidemic.
  People deserve to feel safe in their communities. I don't understand 
it. They deserve to feel safe when they go to a holiday party at work. 
They deserve to be safe sitting in these galleries. They deserve to be 
safe going to a movie theater. They deserve to be safe in their school 
when they are 6 years old or 16 or 26. They deserve to be safe in their 
workplace, at a shopping mall, at a restaurant, and at a health care 
clinic.
  This is our job, to keep our people safe. We know the threats that 
face us abroad, and we have threats at home. So we need to do both. We 
need to protect our people abroad from threats abroad and from threats 
at home. The very best way to honor the victims of gun violence is to 
take sensible steps that are supported by the American people, such as 
universal background checks, safety features on guns, keeping assault 
weapons in the hands of our military and our police, and keeping guns 
out of the hands of people who are unbalanced, unstable, criminals. 
Then we can prevent these tragedies.
  Will we prevent every tragedy? No. I know my friends will say: Well, 
someone can have a knife. Yes. It is a lot easier to get away from a 
knife than an automatic weapon that mows you down before you can even 
look up and figure out what is happening.
  I am crying out today for support for sensible gun laws, and 
regardless of motive--regardless of motive--we need to make sure that 
military weapons belong in the hands of the military and the police. It 
is pretty straightforward. Our people are not safe. I don't care what 
State you look at, I don't care what city you look at, I don't care 
what county you look at.
  San Bernardino is a beautiful place. I don't live far from there. I 
have an office about 15 minutes or less from there. People deserve to 
feel safe in our communities. So I send my love, my prayers, my 
solidarity to the community, to the families, to the first responders, 
and to everyone there. Yes, we are going to pull together, as all these 
communities do, but we need to prevent these things from happening 
because if we don't, we are liable.
  I believe we are liable. We know what is killing people every day. It 
is gun violence, and we know it. I am not a lawyer, but I have a lot of 
family members who are lawyers--my son is, my father was, my husband 
is--and I think once you know something is happening and you can do 
something about it and you don't do something about it, you are 
liable--maybe not in a legal sense, but in a moral sense.
  So I hope we can come together around this. Every time the press 
comes in and asks me, tragedy after tragedy after tragedy: Will 
something happen now? After Sandy Hook, I said: Absolutely. We are 
going to come together. We did not. We did not.
  I want to close with this. In California we have tough gun laws. I 
don't know how these weapons got where they were. We will find out. 
People say: Well, we have these gun laws. Look at this; we have had a 
56 percent reduction of gun violence since 1993 in my great State 
because we have taken action. But this is one Nation under God. If 
somebody comes from a nearby State, from the North, from the East, and 
they have a gun--that is why it is so important for us to work together 
to have sensible national laws and universal background checks. Almost 
90

[[Page 19444]]

percent of the people support it. The majority of NRA members support 
it. What is wrong with us that we can't do that? What are we afraid of?
  These military assault-style weapons kill so fast--and so many 
people. We should make sure they are in the hands of the military and 
the police.
  My heart is heavy and will remain so. This is supposed to be a great 
day for a lot of us who worked so long and hard on the highway bill. 
This was a moment we were waiting for, and that is what life's about. 
You know, there are these moments that you savor, and there are moments 
that you wish to God you never had to talk about or experience. That is 
the kind of day it is for this particular Senator, and I know Senator 
Feinstein feels the same way.
  I thank you very much, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an amendment I 
filed to the reconciliation bill, amendment No. 2887, to strengthen 
Pell grants.
  This amendment provides middle-class families with the kind of stable 
funding source that they can rely on when it comes to paying for 
college. Pell grants have historically been the key investment in 
helping low-income students pay for college. Most of my colleagues 
would agree that a good education is one of the surest paths to the 
middle class.
  In 1980, the maximum Federal Pell grant covered about 77 percent of 
in-state, 4-year college tuition. Now Pell grants account for only one-
third of those costs. Rising college costs prevent many low-income 
students, no matter how hard they work, from being able to go to 
college and thus from reaching the middle class.
  If the Senate can accomplish one thing that invests in our Nation's 
future, it should be to enact policies that help to stabilize and 
expand the middle class. We all know there is a growing income 
disparity in our country that is whittling down our middle class and 
making it harder and harder for people to get ahead in the first place. 
Key to the path forward for many is college affordability. Pell grants 
are a critical part of college affordability.
  Almost half of all college students in the United States receive Pell 
grants to help fund their education, including 23,000 students in my 
home State of Hawaii. Unfortunately, Pell grants--the largest Federal 
student aid program--which are primarily funded by discretionary, not 
mandatory, funding appropriations, do not provide the kind of stable 
funding source that families can rely upon. Each year Congress in its 
discretion determines how much funding goes to Pell grants. This should 
change. Federal financial aid should be a resource that students and 
their families can count on, that they can plan around.
  To that end, the amendment I filed would do two things. First, it 
would convert the Pell Grant Program from the discretionary side of the 
budget to the mandatory side of the budget for 5 years. That way, 
eligible families won't have to worry each year about congressional 
appropriations, at least for 5 years, and they can plan their financing 
for an entire 4-year degree. Second, my amendment would index Pell 
grants annually for inflation. That means that as college costs rise, 
so, too, will they allow Federal aid to low-income students.
  Students and their families should have confidence that if they 
commit to earning an education, Federal support will be there for their 
hard work. My amendment would give them that stability.
  This amendment is paid for by closing tax loopholes for corporate 
executives and hedge fund managers and by instituting the Buffett rule, 
to ensure that Americans who earn over $1 million per year pay their 
fair share of taxes--tax fairness from those who earn more in a year 
than many college graduates may earn in their lifetimes.
  To give a hand-up to the next generation of strivers is more than 
reasonable to me. Access to educational opportunity is not a handout. 
Graduates will still have to work hard to get good jobs, start 
businesses, and succeed, and when they succeed, our country succeeds.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to stabilize and 
strengthen the middle class and to invest in our next generation of 
leaders.
  The amendment to the underlying bill would improve it, but the 
underlying bill is deeply flawed. The underlying bill before us would 
take away health care access for millions of women, seniors, and low-
income working people by gutting the Affordable Care Act, defunding 
Planned Parenthood, and undermining investment and prevention and 
research. The resultant harm to our people is a poison pill that we 
cannot impose on American families. This Republican bill, which does 
little for the middle class and working people, will be vetoed by the 
President. The Republicans know this, and yet they are bound and 
determined to pass this harmful legislation as soon and as fast as 
possible.
  I ask my colleagues to stop, pause, and get our country back on track 
by supporting and strengthening the middle class, by giving a hand-up 
to the people who represent our country's future, and by not yanking 
the rug out from under the millions of Americans who rely on health 
care.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, a few months ago I asked my Republican 
colleagues if they had fallen down, hit their heads, and thought they 
woke up in the 1950s. Today I am back to check on my Republican 
colleagues because it appears they are suffering from a serious case of 
memory loss.
  Before I call the doctors at Mass General, I have to say this really 
isn't a joke. I truly, honestly cannot come up with a better reason why 
my Republican colleagues have forced us back to the Senate floor once 
again to talk about another reckless scheme to defund Planned 
Parenthood. What is with you guys?
  Remember this summer? Republicans launched a deliberate, orchestrated 
plan to defund women's health care centers. Let me just clarify. This 
was not a plan to defund abortions because for nearly 40 years the 
Federal Government has prohibited Federal funding for abortion. Nope. 
The plan was to defund Planned Parenthood health care centers that 
nearly 2.7 million people use every year, health care centers that one 
in five women across America has used for cancer screenings, pregnancy 
and STD tests, birth control, and other basic medical care.
  To a lot of women and to a lot of men, the effort to defund Planned 
Parenthood health care centers was an overt attack on women's access to 
needed and legal health care. When the Republicans forced the Senate to 
vote on a bill to defund Planned Parenthood, it failed--and rightly so. 
That should have been the end of it, but Republican extremists just 
won't quit. In fact, they are doubling down.
  Today Senate Republicans will use a special maneuver to hold another 
vote to defund Planned Parenthood, this time needing only 50 votes to 
pass instead of the usual 60. Even if they pass this reconciliation 
bill, President Obama has said he will veto it, but some Republican 
extremists vow to press on, using the most extreme tactics possible, 
taking the government hostage. They want to attach a rider to the 
government funding bill and threaten to shut down the government 10 
days from now unless the Democrats agree to defund Planned Parenthood. 
Does that sound familiar? Well, that is because it is the very same 
tactic used in 2013 when Republicans shut down the government over the 
Affordable Care Act and flushed $24 billion down the drain--the very 
same tactic that former Speaker John Boehner admitted was a 
``predictable disaster.''
  Republicans may like playing politics with Planned Parenthood, but 
this isn't a game for the millions of women who depend on Planned 
Parenthood for basic medical care every year and who have nowhere else 
to go. Threatening to shut down the government is certainly not a game. 
It is not a game for cancer patients who could be turned away from 
clinical trials at NIH. It is not a game for small businesses that 
depend on our national parks being

[[Page 19445]]

open for tourist visits. It is not a game for seniors who need their 
Medicare paperwork processed or for the veterans whose benefits could 
be at risk, and it is not a game for the hundreds of thousands of 
Federal employees across this country--from park rangers to scientists 
to cafeteria workers and janitors at government buildings--who could be 
sent home 2 weeks before Christmas with no paycheck coming in.
  This radical assault on women's health care and reproductive rights 
has gone on long enough. So in case my Republican colleagues are 
suffering from short-term memory loss, let me spell this out again loud 
and clear. We will not allow you to turn back the clock on women's 
health and women's rights. If you try to sneak provisions into the 
government funding bill to defund Planned Parenthood, we will fight you 
every step of the way, and we will win. That is not a threat; that is a 
promise.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I rise this morning in opposition to 
the reconciliation bill that we are considering today. There are a 
number of reasons I have concerns, but one of the most important has to 
do with its repeal of the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act, 
while it is not perfect, is working. More Americans than ever before 
have access to health care.
  In New Hampshire, almost 45,000 people have received health insurance 
through the exchange. Most of those people did not have health care 
coverage before the Affordable Care Act, and the majority of these 
people are getting insurance premium support to make it more 
affordable.
  In New Hampshire, another 44,000 people are getting coverage through 
Medicaid expansion. The Governor and the State legislature worked long 
and hard to come to a bipartisan agreement--a Democratic Governor and a 
Republican legislature--on how to expand Medicaid in a way that works 
for New Hampshire. The reconciliation bill that we are considering 
today would turn back the clock on all of that work. It would repeal 
Medicaid expansion, and it would eliminate coverage for so many of the 
people who need it the most.
  In short, this bill would wreak havoc on the lives of families and 
individuals, people such as Deborah from Conway, NH. She and her 
husband own a small business. They work hard, and they live within 
their means. But for 17 years, they have been without health insurance, 
and they have had to forego health care services because of costs.
  As a result of Medicaid expansion, Deborah was recently able to go to 
the doctor for her first physical in 18 years. Imagine that; it was her 
first physical in 18 years. During that exam, she discovered that she 
has high blood pressure and that she is at risk for cancer. Thanks to 
the Affordable Care Act, she is able to take the preventive measures. 
She expects to live a long, healthy life and is probably going to save 
money because she has received this preventive care. We cannot turn our 
backs on people such as Deborah and her family.
  Finally, the reconciliation bill would defund Planned Parenthood, 
which would deny access to 12,000 women in New Hampshire access to 
health care providers they trust and to services they need. For many of 
those women, Planned Parenthood is the easiest, most affordable, and 
best way for them, and--in many cases--the only way for them to get the 
care they need. I proudly stand with the millions of women who rely on 
Planned Parenthood, and I will continue to oppose any attempt to defund 
such an important component of our health care system.
  While I remain gravely concerned about the underlying bill, I am 
pleased to join Senators Wyden and Murray today in offering an 
amendment to address an issue that is vitally important to New 
Hampshire, to northern New England, and to much of the country, and 
that is this epidemic of heroin and opioid abuse.
  In New Hampshire and across this country, drug abuse has reached 
epidemic proportions. Each day 120 Americans die of drug overdoses. 
That is two deaths every hour.
  In New Hampshire we are losing a person a day due to drug overdoses. 
Drug overdose deaths have exceeded car crashes as the No. 1 cause of 
fatalities in the United States. We just had a report come out that 
shows that for the first time in years, the lifespan of White Americans 
is going down. It is going down for one reason that was cited, and that 
is because of drug overdoses. Mental health illness and drug abuse is a 
national public health emergency, and it is time for us to act.
  What the amendment we are offering will do is to take important steps 
to provide critical resources for the prevention, intervention, and 
treatment of mental illness and substance abuse disorders. The 
amendment will ensure that any health insurance plan purchased on the 
exchange is held to mental health parity and addiction equity 
standards, and it will make it easy for consumers to know what benefits 
are covered and the insurance plan's denial records.
  Importantly, the amendment makes it easier for patients to receive 
medication-assisted treatment drugs--drugs such as methadone, 
naltrexone and naloxone, commonly known as Narcan, and it prohibits 
lifetime limits on those drugs.
  Our amendment also strengthens Medicaid coverage of services to 
prevent and treat mental illness and substance abuse disorders. Again, 
not only do we have this epidemic, but we don't have enough treatment 
beds, we don't have enough treatment facilities, and we don't have 
enough providers to assist and support those people who are trying to 
get clean. For years, Medicaid has been prohibited from reimbursing 
medically necessary care to patients in residential or treatment 
facilities with more than 16 beds.
  Historically, this has been a barrier for patients who need these 
treatments for drug abuse and who have limited access to that 
treatment. Our amendment would enable more people to receive these 
services by allowing reimbursement for these facilities in States that 
have expanded Medicaid, such as New Hampshire. The amendment will also 
provide additional Medicaid Federal funding to help States provide 
community treatment programs and health homes for those in need of 
help.
  Finally, this amendment provides over $15 billion of needed funding 
to States and municipalities to help address the public health 
emergency in those States and communities that are the frontlines of 
this crisis.
  Through the substance abuse prevention and treatment block grants and 
the community mental health service block grants, this service is 
targeted to those most at risk for substance abuse and mental illness, 
giving the States flexibility to develop and fund programs that work 
best for them. This prevention, intervention, and treatment of 
substance abuse and mental health disorders have the potential to make 
the difference in millions of lives.
  The amendment is fully paid for by closing tax loopholes. With the 
tools provided in this amendment, we can change the lives of those 
struggling with mental illness and substance abuse disorders, and we 
can turn the tide of this national public health epidemic.
  I thank you all, and I hope that as we consider this reconciliation 
bill, we will have the opportunity to vote on this amendment and that 
there would be support to address the critical crisis we are facing 
because of heroin and opioid abuse.
  I yield the floor.
  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. SULLIVAN. 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. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I am going to take a few minutes to 
talk about the reconciliation bill that we are discussing and debating 
on the Senate floor this week, particularly the

[[Page 19446]]

focus on repealing the Affordable Care Act, or what is called 
ObamaCare. There are many, many aspects of the bill that we are 
debating--the individual mandate, the Cadillac tax, the employer 
mandate. These will all be gone. Essentially, we will start the process 
of what I believe the vast majority of Americans want, which is real, 
affordable health care, not what we currently have.
  I was recently home in Anchorage, AK. A lot of us get a sense of what 
our constituents are feeling by going about doing our basic chores and 
running errands when we are back home. Two weeks ago, in the course of 
2 hours of getting gas, at a grocery store, and at Lowe's, I had three 
different Alaskans come up to me and plead to do something about 
ObamaCare, how it was wiping out their home income and their small 
business--three in 2 hours.
  Similarly, I was in Fairbanks a few days ago and heard from another 
small business owner. They made the same plea that many small business 
owners I have heard from in Alaska have talked about. They have had 
health insurance for their employees for years where they have taken 
care of them. Yet the increases in the costs of these plans are such 
that their companies will not be able to operate. They have this huge 
dilemma: to continue to cover their employees whom they care a lot 
about--some of whom have been working for decades--or to dump them into 
the marketplace, because that is the only way the company can survive.
  That is the dilemma that this bill is putting people into. Hardly a 
day passes where I don't hear from constituents about the problems they 
are having. Let me give you a couple of examples.
  A family in Eagle River, AK, will pay $1,200 a month in premiums with 
a $10,000 deductible under the new Affordable Care Act. A couple in 
Anchorage will be paying $3,131 a month in premiums--almost $38,000 a 
year.
  Here is an excerpt from a constituent letter:

       The renewal paperwork that I just received estimated our 
     new payment to be just over $1,000/month--doubling our 
     monthly expense. . . . What is a young family to do?

  Here is another constituent: ``There is nothing `affordable' about 
the Affordable Health Care Act.''
  Another constituent said:

       Insurance rates are killing my small business. . . . We 
     have tried to keep our employees and their families covered 
     but don't see how we can continue to [be in business].

  Here is another constituent of mine: ``Please, please help us!!'' 
They are begging for help.
  Teachers, construction workers, small business owners, self-
sufficient Alaskans--so many of them--are asking for help because of 
what this Federal Government did to them.
  The numbers don't lie. In Alaska and throughout the country, workers 
and families are suffering. Small businesses are being squeezed. Job 
creation is being stymied. Nearly every single promise made by the 
President of the United States and the supporters of this bill in the 
Congress has been broken.
  Let me remind my colleagues what some of those promises were. Here is 
one from the President: ``If you like your health care plan, you'll be 
able to keep your health care plan.''
  Here is another one from the President: ``If you like your doctor, 
you can keep your doctor.''
  The law, he told the American people, ``means more choice, more 
competition, lower costs for millions of Americans.''
  He told the American public that premiums would be reduced on average 
for Americans for their health care plans by $2,500. But again, the 
numbers we see don't lie. Costs are soaring all over our country. For 
example, a bronze plan under ObamaCare, the least expensive insurance 
available on the exchange, costs on average--this is a national 
average--$420 a month, with an average deductible of $5,653 for an 
individual and close to $11,600 for a family.
  Remember former Speaker of the House and ObamaCare promoter Nancy 
Pelosi with her line about how important it was to pass ObamaCare so we 
could all figure out what was in it. She promised that ObamaCare would 
create ``4 million jobs--400,000 jobs almost immediately.'' That was 
the former Speaker.
  Let's see what the Congressional Budget Office says about that 
promise. Recently, the CBO projected that ObamaCare will result in 2 
million fewer jobs in 2017 and 2.5 million fewer jobs in America by 
2024. Obviously, that promise didn't come true. Promise after promise 
was unfulfilled. It is no wonder the American people have such a low 
opinion of the Federal Government and the Congress.
  What is of the laudable goal of health insurance for the uninsured? 
It is a very laudable goal, and there is no doubt about it--affordable 
health insurance for the uninsured. ObamaCare is barely moving the 
needle. Today there are 35 million people who don't have health 
insurance. According to the CBO, 10 years from now there is still going 
to be approximately 27 million people who don't have coverage under 
this system.
  Let me get a little more specific in terms of my State. Probably no 
other State in the country has been more negatively damaged by 
ObamaCare than Alaska. Five insurance companies originally offered 
coverage in our exchanges in Alaska, offering a glimmer of hope of what 
is really needed in the health care market, which is competition. Today 
only two are left to provide individual insurance on the health care 
exchange. Both will be increasing premiums by approximately 40 percent 
this year. In Anchorage, for the lowest level plan--a bronze plan--
premiums are going to go up 46 percent.
  There you go--major metropolitan areas in the United States. Look at 
the far left. That is Anchorage, AK, and at 46 percent in 1 year, it 
will make it one of the most expensive and the biggest increase in 
terms of metropolitan areas in the United States.
  Let me give you another example. A 40-year-old nonsmoker--
individual--who doesn't receive subsidies will pay anywhere from $579 
to $678 a month in premiums for a bronze plan with a deductible of 
either $5,250 for the more expensive premium or $6,850 for the less 
expensive premium.
  Remember, ObamaCare requires Alaskans and Americans to purchase these 
plans. Remember what it did for the first time in U.S. history. The 
Congress of the United States told the American people: You must buy a 
product; you have to or you will be penalized.
  That brings me to the penalties. Because of the prohibitive costs, 
some in Alaska and many across the country have chosen to go without 
coverage and pay the yearly fine under ObamaCare. But that fine is also 
very expensive. Alaskans and Americans are asking: What is the point? 
What is the point of having health insurance that has been forced on 
them by their Federal Government and that they can't afford? Others are 
foregoing seeing their doctors altogether.
  A recent Gallup poll found that in 2014 one in three Americans says 
they have put off getting medical treatment they or their family 
members need because with these numbers it is too expensive. They are 
not going to the doctor. Again, what is the point? You have health 
insurance, but you can't go see your doctor because it is too 
expensive. That number, by the way--one in three--is among the highest 
number in the Gallup poll's 14-year history of posing this question.
  As the costs rise, the numbers will continue to rise. Not 
surprisingly, given all of these numbers, given that number, a recent 
poll found that despite 6 years of being under ObamaCare, where our 
citizens of the United States were supposed to finally be comfortable 
with it, to understand it, to have it working, still 52 percent of 
Americans have an unfavorable view of it--only 44 percent, favorable.
  For Alaskans, this is only going to get worse. The so-called Cadillac 
tax--one of the numerous taxes embedded in ObamaCare--is going to kick 
in for 2018. It will be devastating for individual Alaskans, for union 
members, and for small businesses across Alaska. It has been estimated 
that as many as 90 percent of Alaska businesses will be faced with the 
increased Cadillac tax. That is a tax of an additional 40 percent on 
these benefits. Many small

[[Page 19447]]

businesses in Alaska will not be able to afford this. An employer with 
20 employees, under the Cadillac tax will pay an estimated $28,000 a 
year more in taxes--just for the Cadillac tax on a small business. That 
can be the difference between make or break for that business.
  Who is going to get hurt by this? Small businesses, but more 
importantly, their employees, their workers will. Those extra costs are 
going to trickle down to the workers, likely in the form of reduced 
benefits and reduced wages and more problems with their health 
insurance plan.
  As I mentioned, it is not just small businesses. Hard-working 
Alaskans covered under union plans will also very likely be hit by the 
Cadillac tax, requiring them to pay much more, and so will State and 
local government employer plans.
  For all of these reasons, one of my campaign promises was to vote to 
repeal ObamaCare. I certainly plan to do it today when we take up this 
reconciliation measure. I certainly hope it is going to pass.
  When this legislation gets to the President's desk, what will happen 
then? Well, he is likely going to veto it again. I hope he looks at 
these numbers and recognizes what a mistake this bill was and agrees 
with us to work together to replace it, but he is likely going to veto 
it, and in doing so will likely mislead Americans again by claiming 
that ObamaCare is working. It is not working.
  Let me give you another example of how it is not working. 
UnitedHealth, one of the Nation's biggest insurance companies, recently 
announced that because of its huge losses, it may pull out of ObamaCare 
altogether. If United pulls out, then others are likely to follow.
  Premera Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alaska, one of the only health 
insurers left in Alaska offering coverage on the exchange, said that it 
can't continue to sustain losses under the exchange.
  As bad laws often do, ObamaCare contains the seed of its own 
destruction. But for the sake of millions of Americans and thousands of 
Alaskans who have been sold a false bill of goods, we can't simply wait 
to see it self-destruct. This was not the health care that was promised 
to Americans, and we can't let it get worse. We need to act, and that 
is why I am joining with my colleagues today to repeal this law. We 
need to look at replacing it with one that includes provisions that are 
missing, such as tort reform. We need a system that encourages 
purchasing insurance across State lines, encourages patient-centered 
care, and allows the kind of doctor-patient relationship that has been 
the hallmark of American care for many years.
  Contrary to what some on the other side of the aisle have claimed, 
there have been many alternatives proposed to ObamaCare. The plan in 
the Senate has been introduced by Senators Hatch and Burr and 
Congressman Fred Upton on the House side. Their legislation includes 
many of these important reforms. It will allow people to actually get 
involved in their own health care and not watch this train wreck
in terms of health care becoming unaffordable for Americans throughout 
all of the different States.
  When selling the law to the public, President Obama talked about the 
fierce urgency of now. That is exactly what I am hearing from my 
constituents when they write: Please, please help us. What is a young 
family to do? The fierce urgency of now is now.
  Finally, I wish to comment on a number of my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle who have been lamenting that this reconciliation vote 
we are going to take today is going to be along party lines. They have 
been lamenting that this might be some kind of partisan vote.
  As the Presiding Officer knows, this is a bit rich and a bit ironic. 
It is very important to remember that 6 years ago, almost to the day, 
this legislation passed in the Senate and the House by a party-line 
vote--a partisan vote--so to hear their concerns now rings a little 
hollow. That was not a wise move back then.
  One important lesson of U.S. history is that most, if not all, major 
pieces of legislation in the Congress on important social issues have 
been passed with bipartisan majorities, which helps to make legislation 
sustainable. That happens when the American people back that kind of 
legislation.
  The American people have never backed this legislation, but democracy 
has an interesting way of working--not always quickly, but eventually. 
This law is not popular. It was never supported by the American people, 
and they are noticing. As a matter of fact, of the 60 U.S. Senators who 
voted for this law 6 years ago, 30 are no longer in this Chamber. That 
is democracy working.
  We are going to take that vote again today. I am hoping some of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join us in repealing a 
law that doesn't work and is dramatically harming Americans so we can 
move on to a health care plan that helps us, helps families, and 
prevents constituents from writing to their Members of the Senate and 
begging for help, which is what is going on right now because of this 
bill.
  I yield the floor.
  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. CASEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise to speak about some of the matters 
we are working on today with regard to votes that will take place later 
on.
  We now are in a period in our economic history where we have had a 
significant recovery, but we still have a ways to go and still have 
families across the country who are living with some economic 
uncertainty. We can take steps today and certainly over the next couple 
of days and, we hope, in 2016 to ease some of that uncertainty or to 
create more economic certainty for our families, especially middle-
class families.
  One of the most important steps we can take to address some of the 
challenges our families face is to boost middle-class incomes. The most 
significant challenge we have as a nation right now, I believe over the 
long term, is what will happen to incomes--especially what will happen 
to middle-class incomes--over time.
  I have an amendment today that will address part of the solution or 
part of the strategy to raising incomes. One of those ideas is an 
expansion of the child and dependent care tax credit, which is a tax 
credit that helps families afford childcare, and so I will speak about 
that for a couple of minutes today. The other issue we are going to 
deal with is the so-called dual-earner tax credit, which helps families 
who have young children where both parents work outside the home.
  I don't think it is a news bulletin to anyone here or across the 
country that the cost of childcare has skyrocketed, especially in 
recent years. A recent study by the Pew Foundation found that average 
weekly childcare expenses rose 70 percent between 1985 and 2013. So the 
cost every week that a family is paying for childcare is up basically 
70 percent in 30 years or 25 to 30 years.
  That is one of the many costs that have gone up in the lives of 
middle-class families. Their childcare costs have gone way up, the cost 
of higher education has gone way up in that time period, the cost of 
health care, the cost of energy, and the cost of food. It seems as 
though for a middle-class family, every cost or every number we would 
hope would be going down or leveling off is going up. As a result, 
childcare is increasingly becoming literally unaffordable for middle-
class families.
  That is a reality in a context where we know that the cost is going 
up at a time when all the evidence shows that quality childcare can 
have a substantially positive impact on a child's life. One of the 
reasons quality childcare

[[Page 19448]]

matters so much to a child is because they have opportunities to learn. 
One thing I have said over and over again is that if our children learn 
more now--meaning when they are in those early years--when they are in 
childcare settings, they are going to earn more later. That direct 
linkage, which all the evidence shows--all the data shows, all the 
studies show--the linkage between learning and earning is substantial. 
One of the best ways to make sure kids learn more now and earn more 
later when they are in the workforce is to make sure they have quality 
childcare.
  To give one example, in Pennsylvania the average cost for full-time 
daycare for an infant is $10,640. For a 4-year-old, it is $8,072. Those 
numbers sound almost like approaching college tuition maybe at some 
public universities. Double-figure, thousand-dollar numbers for 
childcare is almost hard to comprehend--$10,640 for an infant and 
$8,072 for a 4-year-old. So what does that mean for, for example, 
married couples in Pennsylvania? It means that about 12 percent of 
their annual income is dedicated to childcare. How about for a single-
parent family? For a single mother, those numbers translate into 44 
percent of her income. Forty-four percent of that single mom's income 
is going to childcare. And she has to have it because she has to work. 
This isn't something extra, something nice to do; she has to have that 
childcare. She has to be able to pay for it. And in a State such as 
Pennsylvania, which I think is fairly typical of the country when it 
comes to these costs, if that single mother is having to pay 44 percent 
of her income on childcare, that makes it very hard for her to makes 
ends meet, if not impossible.
  That is why the Tax Code has long recognized the need to provide 
families with tax relief to offset childcare expenses through the child 
and dependent care tax credit. However, the way this tax credit is 
currently structured, it means that few families can benefit from it.
  Here is what we should do. We should make the full credit available 
to most working families. More than 85 percent of taxpayers in 
Pennsylvania, for example, with children would receive the full benefit 
if our amendment passes. We should increase the maximum amount of the 
credit for children under 5 from $1,500 to $3,000, thereby reducing the 
cost of childcare by 35 percent. That would be one of the positive 
benefits of passing the amendment. Third, we should ensure that lower 
income families are better able to benefit from the credit by making it 
fully refundable. We have not done that. We should do that. That is 
what families would benefit from. Finally, we should retain the value 
over time by indexing the benefits in income thresholds to inflation.
  That is what we do on the child and dependent care tax credit--a 
substantially positive advancement for families trying to pay for 
childcare as the cost of everything in their life is going up, for 
middle-class families especially.
  Second, we have the so-called dual-earner tax credit. We want to 
expand those tax credits for working parents with young children. The 
amendment includes a provision which would provide up to a $700 tax 
credit on secondary earners' income for parents with children who are 
under the age of 12.
  We know that as our workforce changes, we must develop policy that 
ensures that our Tax Code rewards work and expands opportunity for 
working middle-class families. That should be the goal of everyone 
here. I think on a lot of days it is, but sometimes the Senate doesn't 
focus on those priorities. Make the Tax Code reward work and expand 
opportunity. If we enact these policies we will guarantee that these 
middle-class families see their incomes go up and we can do it in a 
fiscally responsible way that pays for these tax cuts by closing the 
most egregious tax loopholes.
  The amendment will say that companies can no longer evade U.S. taxes 
through so-called corporate inversions, which is when a large company 
buys another company overseas and then claims their headquarters are 
abroad. The inversion strategy that some companies have employed has 
been an abuse of the Tax Code and frankly an insult to working 
Americans.
  We also ask, as a way to pay for these changes, that the very wealthy 
who have received lots of relief over the last decade--the kind of tax 
relief we have not seen in my judgment in human history, not just U.S. 
history--those folks at the very top have gotten a very good deal for 
the last couple of decades, especially the last decade or so, and this 
Senator thinks a lot of those folks would like to help their country 
and would like to help us pay for these commonsense tax relief 
provisions for middle-class families, especially as it relates to 
paying for the costs of childcare.
  How do we do that? We can enact as part of one of the pay-fors the 
so-called Buffett rule, named after Warren Buffett--a pretty wealthy 
guy--but he has supported a measure that would ensure that a secretary 
or teacher doesn't have a higher tax rate than someone making millions 
of dollars a year or literally billions a year.
  Finally, we would ensure that those who run very large corporations 
aren't able to use loopholes to avoid paying taxes. So these basic, 
commonsense steps would make sure our Tax Code works for the middle 
class and not just those at the very top. In particular, the way the 
Senate can focus on middle-class incomes is to put in place policies 
that help families pay for some of the biggest expenses they face, such 
as childcare.
  Finally, Madam President, I will move to the issue of Medicaid. I 
know my colleague Senator Brown is on the floor and has worked so hard 
on this issue over many years. I want to talk about a matter we are 
working on together, and I appreciate his leadership on Medicaid.
  The effort we are undertaking would bolster the work we have done 
over the last 5 years to expand access to Medicaid. When Medicaid was 
expanded on the Affordable Care Act, the so-called Federal medical 
assistance percentage, FMAP, basically is when the Federal Government 
contributes to help States cover the cost of Medicaid. That was set at 
100 percent for 2016. Beginning in 2017 the Federal Government's 
contribution would decrease until it gets to 90 percent in 2020. The 
amendment that Senator Brown, I, and others will put forth will keep 
the Federal contribution at 100 percent until 2020, instead of letting 
it drop to 90 percent at 2020.
  Pennsylvania has expanded into the Medicaid Program. We are happy 
about that, but in doing that what Pennsylvania did is they ensured 
that all individuals with incomes up to 133 percent of poverty were 
covered. Other States have not done this. This has created a so-called 
coverage gap that is impacting over 3 million people around the 
country.
  One of the reasons States point to in refusing to expand Medicaid is 
they cannot afford to pay the costs they will incur, beginning in 2017, 
when the Federal share goes to 90 percent. The States at that point 
will have to pay more, and some are using that or citing that as a 
reason they will not expand Medicaid. This amendment would remove that 
concern that has been asserted by Governors and others around the 
country. States would be free to expand Medicaid without having to 
worry about how they pay the bill.
  Wrapping up, let's remember what Medicaid means. Medicaid isn't some 
far-off program that doesn't affect a lot of Americans. It directly 
affects tens of millions of Americans and tens of millions more 
indirectly. For example, Medicaid pays for almost half of all the 
births in the country. Half of all the babies born in the country are 
paid for by Medicaid. Every Senator in both parties should remember 
that. So this isn't some program that you don't have to worry about, 
that can be cut and slashed without consequence. Half of the babies 
born in our country are paid for by Medicaid.
  How about older citizens? Skilled nursing home payments--that is a 
shorthand way of saying nursing homes--60 percent of those payments are 
covered by Medicaid, and 65 percent

[[Page 19449]]

of almost 23 million publicly paid resident days of care in the State 
of Pennsylvania are paid for by Medicaid, compared to 13 percent by 
Medicare. So Medicaid has a huge impact on long-term care for families 
across the country.
  By the way, Medicaid is not just for low-income families. A lot of 
middle-income families benefit directly from the payments made by 
Medicaid for long-term care. So if you care about older citizens in 
your own family getting nursing home placement, if you care about 45 
percent of all the babies born in the country, you better care about 
Medicaid, and you better care about efforts, in a sensible way, to 
expand Medicaid across the country, which would be better for all of 
us, especially the children, older citizens, and Americans who have 
disabilities who are all affected by Medicaid.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I understood that the Senator from 
Ohio was seeking consent to speak after me.
  I would like to take a few minutes this morning to speak about how 
the Affordable Care Act is harming the people of the State of Alaska. 
This Senator has come to the floor a lot to talk about the fact that we 
in the State of Alaska have the highest insurance premiums. Well, 
again, we have the highest insurance premiums in the country. Believe 
me, I am hearing from folks back home all the time about the burden 
that these costs place on them.
  Our State's largest newspaper has been reporting, as we have seen 
these premium increases coming out over these past several months--they 
have been detailing the incredible rise of premiums throughout the 
State. The average monthly premium for a single 40-year-old in the 
State of Alaska is now over $700 a month--$700 a month for the average 
single 40-year-old--more than double the national average. People are 
paying thousands of dollars each month to insure their families. The 
insurance premium costs have gone up somewhere between 25 percent to 40 
percent each year. How do you budget for that?
  A family of three in Ketchikan--I got the information from them--are 
going to be paying almost $2,000 a month next year for one of the 
cheapest bronze plans available. This is a family of three paying for 
one of the cheapest plans, and they are going to be paying $2,000 a 
month. This plan comes with a $10,500 deductible. Heck of a deal. In 
spite of paying almost $24,000 on insurance, nearly all the medical 
bills will still be paid out of pocket for this family. They will not 
see any benefit until they have spent just about $35,000. Contrast the 
$2,000 per month for health insurance with their mortgage payment. 
Their monthly mortgage payment is $1,250. Does this seem right to 
anyone? It should not cost more to provide health care coverage for 
your family than to own your home.
  We have a married couple in Wasilla who were paying $850 a month 
prior to the ACA, but that plan wasn't acceptable under the new 
regulations. The promise that you can keep the plan if you like it--
well, that didn't hold. They had to find other insurance. Next year 
this married couple is going to be paying over $2,300 per month. That 
means they are going to be paying over $17,000 more per year for the 
same coverage. This is a 268-percent increase in just one calendar 
year. This is not right. This is unconscionable. It is not that this 
married couple has somehow increased their income by an additional 
$17,000 last year. No, this is just the cost to cover their insurance.
  A self-employed man down in Homer whose insurance covers him, his 
wife, and his son has seen his costs increase from $325 per month 2 
years ago to $1,325 a month since the ACA was passed. That is an 
additional $1,000 per month that these folks are now paying for the 
cheapest bronze plan available with a $12,000 deductible. This is not 
some Cadillac plan. This is the cheapest plan available. This is a 
$12,000 deductible. This is what these folks at home are paying.
  The ACA repeal bill that we are currently debating addresses the 
problem by reducing the penalty for not buying insurance to zero. 
Alaskans could choose to buy insurance or simply save the thousands of 
dollars they would be paying each month that could be spent on medical 
bills as needed but would be available for the families to use as they 
see fit.
  On top of the outrageous costs that we are seeing that come with the 
individual mandate, the Cadillac tax that I just mentioned hits 
Alaskans harder than anywhere else in the country. Premera is the 
largest insurer in our State and they tell me that about 62 percent of 
their customers in Alaska will be forced to pay these tax penalties 
under the Cadillac tax in 2018, the first year of the tax. The average 
cost will be $420. That would be the tax on the plan that they would be 
paying that first year. It is not as if these plans are grand. The 
problem is with the high cost of health care within our State. The tax 
penalizes Alaskans because our health care is more expensive in a rural 
State with a low population.
  This tax is going to hit the State, the boroughs, and our school 
districts. It will take away money from public education and other 
services that the State provides. I am hearing from school districts. 
Instead of saying they are concerned about testing or some of the other 
issues we are dealing with in education, they are saying their No. 1 
concern is the implementation of the Cadillac tax. It is the single 
greatest threat to quality public education. That is how Robert Boyle, 
the superintendent of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District 
describes the ACA, as the single greatest threat to quality public 
education. Bob's district faces a tax penalty of over $500,000 due to 
the Cadillac tax coming up in 2018, the first year of the tax, and the 
penalties only increase from there. The Ketchikan Gateway Borough 
School District is looking at a half-million-dollar tax coming due in 
2018. They are not getting more money to run their school district. 
This is money out the door that isn't improving the education of a 
single child in that district.
  We are facing a financial crisis in the State. The State cut the 
education budget this year, and they are looking hard at cutting it 
again next year. We are a State that relies on oil revenues, and you 
see what is going on with the price of oil. That is an impact to us. We 
are feeling it--desperately feeling it. School districts cannot afford 
the imposition of hundreds of thousands of dollars of new taxes on top 
of a budget reduction. The money, as you and I know, would be far 
better spent paying teachers what they deserve. School districts are 
now looking to possibly reduce benefits for teachers in order to avoid 
paying the new tax. With low pay and no benefits, how are our schools 
going to get ahead? How can we expect to attract and retain quality 
teachers? The answer is pretty real--we just can't do it. Without 
quality teachers who suffers? It is going to be the kids.
  The bill we are debating solves the problem for 6 years by delaying 
the Cadillac tax for 6 years until 2024. That gives us time to find a 
way to address it permanently and in a responsible way. This Senator 
advocates eliminating the Cadillac tax altogether.
  The problems with the ACA don't end with hundreds of thousands of 
dollars in new taxes on schools or charging individuals outrageous 
premiums. It also impacts our small businesses. I heard from so many 
business owners around the State who want to expand but are saying they 
just can't do it. They can't do it. They cannot afford to both expand 
their business and then hit the 50-employee threshold at which they are 
required to provide the insurance. So, at best, these businesses are 
kind of treading water right now. The ACA requires every business owned 
by an individual to be grouped together when counting employees.
  I have heard from a fellow in my State from Fairbanks. He owns 
several businesses there. It is a mix of businesses. One is a plumbing 
distribution company, but he also has a whole handful of little coffee 
shops. There is quite a difference between plumbing distribution and 
coffee shops.
  For tax purposes, Mr. Vivlamore's businesses are all treated as 
separate

[[Page 19450]]

entities, and for legal purposes, they are all treated as separate 
entities. That makes sense. But for some reason, for purposes of health 
insurance, they are all lumped into one bucket. He has his employees 
from the coffee shop, and he has employees from the plumbing 
distribution business, so he is going to be required to provide health 
insurance when the mandate kicks in because he employs more than 50 
people across all of his companies together, even though he doesn't 
have 50 employees in every one of his very different businesses. He has 
talked to me about what he is going to do about the prospect of 
possibly downsizing because the cost of doing business under the ACA 
for him is just too high.
  This issue is also resolved in the bill by reducing to zero the 
penalty for noncompliance with the employer mandate. Employers will 
once again be free to offer workers more hours, hire more staff, or 
expand operations without facing a large tax penalty for not offering 
insurance or an equally significant cost increase when they are forced 
to provide insurance.
  I have been on the floor before, and I have asked the question 
before, but it is worth repeating: For whom is the Affordable Care Act 
actually affordable? It is certainly not affordable for the average, 
hard-working Alaskan who is being forced to shell out thousands of 
dollars for their premiums each month. It is not affordable for the 
school districts and other State entities that will pay huge taxes. It 
isn't affordable for the kids whose educations will potentially suffer.
  This law is not affordable for us in Alaska. That is why I support 
the bill that repeals the ACA and wipes out these harmful impacts. We 
cannot stand by and see these premiums shoot through the roof 30 
percent or more each year, see our businesses artificially constrained, 
and see the quality of public education decline. It just doesn't work.
  I appreciate the time this morning and look forward to the 
opportunity this afternoon to weigh in on some of these very 
significant issues that have great and considerable impact on the 
people of Alaska.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I thank Senator Murkowski for the consent 
request.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 12 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


             Omnibus Appropriations Bill and Policy Riders

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, many in Washington and on Wall Street 
seem to have collective amnesia. They seem to have forgotten, amazingly 
enough, about the destructive, devastating impact of the financial 
crisis even though it took place well less than a decade ago.
  For millions of Americans, that crisis is unforgettable; millions 
haven't recovered. My wife and I live in the city of Cleveland in ZIP 
Code 44105. That ZIP Code in the first half of 2007 had more 
foreclosures than any ZIP Code in the United States of America. That 
was in large part because of Wall Street greed and a number of 
companies that engaged in predatory lending.
  In September of 2008, Lehman Brothers collapsed--the largest 
bankruptcy in U.S. history--following a decade of unfair lending, Wall 
Street recklessness, lax supervision, and co-optation in too many cases 
by regulators and Members of Congress.
  I recently interviewed former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke 
on C-SPAN about his new book. The book title he was originally writing 
when he joined the Federal Reserve over a decade ago was going to be 
called ``The Age of Delusion: How Politicians and Central Bankers 
Created the Great Depression.'' This was about the Great Depression. I 
asked him what he would call a similar book or what a historian 20 
years from now might call a similar book about the great recession, 
from which we have emerged over the last decade. He said it would be 
called ``Asleep at the Switch'' or ``Too Complacent.''
  That complacency took a devastating toll on American families. That 
was the complacency of Congress, of the Bush administration, of 
regulators, of far too many people at OCC and the Fed who were 
captured, if you will--cognitive capture, regulatory capture, too close 
to the banking industry, too close to Wall Street, believing too much 
in the myths that were woven by Alan Greenspan and that crowd more than 
a decade ago.
  The meltdown triggered a crisis that left America's economy 
hemorrhaging more than 750,000 jobs a month. Think back to January of 
2009, when President Obama took the oath of office. We lost 750,000 
jobs that month when Bush left office and Obama took office. The 
hemorrhaging, of course, didn't stop immediately, although over the 
last 5\1/2\ years, almost 6 years, we have seen job growth every single 
month.
  By the time we hit bottom, we had lost 9 million jobs, the 
unemployment rate soared to 10 percent, and 5 million Americans lost 
their homes. The crisis--the worst since the Great Depression--took a 
shattering financial and psychological toll on a generation of 
Americans. Thirteen trillion dollars in household wealth was wiped 
out--again because of complacency and co-optation of the Federal 
Reserve under Alan Greenspan, of this U.S. Congress, and of the Bush 
administration.
  Congress responded by passing Dodd-Frank. We put in place new rules 
to bring stability to markets, to ensure strong consumer investor 
protections, and to crack down on the reckless and irresponsible 
behavior of Wall Street. Again, to repeat: Since 2010, we have seen 68 
months, 69 months, and 70 consecutive months of job growth--I believe 
the longest in modern economic history.
  One of Wall Street reform's most important achievements was the 
creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It has an 
accountable director to serve as a counterbalance to the Wall Street 
lobby, and it has an independent funding stream. It was created to 
ensure that never again would consumers be an afterthought in our 
Nation's financial system.
  Because of Wall Street reform, banks are required to fund themselves 
using more of their shareholders' money and to hold more cash or assets 
that can be sold easily--we call that liquidity--when they run into 
trouble, to undergo strength tests, and to strengthen risk management. 
That is why this banking system is more stable and safer than it was 
during the Bush years.
  The law also created the Financial Stability Oversight Council to 
fill gaps in the regulatory framework and establish a forum for 
agencies to identify risks to preempt, precipitate, and preempt the 
identifiable risks that could contribute to the next financial crisis.
  An overwhelming majority of Americans support regulation of Wall 
Street. They know that Wall Street did serious damage to our country. 
But in May the Senate banking committee reported out a sweeping 
financial deregulation package along party lines. I tried to negotiate 
with Senator Shelby during the spring. They broke down once it became 
clear that the effort wasn't about negotiating; it was really about 
rolling back the most important parts of Wall Street reform.
  Senate Republicans are now working to move this controversial bill--
this repeal, this rollback, this slicing of Wall Street, of Dodd-
Frank--to roll back these reforms through the appropriations process. 
This move, unprecedented in its scale, shows the Republicans will try 
to ram their agenda through Congress any way possible.
  Last year, Republicans slipped a repeal of section 716 of Wall Street 
reform into the end-of-year funding bill. They have tried the same 
stealth strategy to undermine Wall Street reform, only this time it 
goes far beyond one provision. Under the guise of so-called regulatory 
relief for community banks and credit unions, Republicans are trying to 
undermine consumer protections, sensible regulations for larger bank 
holding oversight companies, and the Financial Stability Oversight 
Council. These are a lot of words, perhaps, but what we know is they 
again want to do Wall Street's bidding--not on the floor of the Senate. 
We are not

[[Page 19451]]

debating these issues on the floor; they want to do back-room deals to 
take care of their Wall Street friends. That is what all of this is 
about. That is why we introduced our alternative proposal last year.
  Now the good news is this: Republicans and Democrats agreed with our 
approach in the House of moving noncontroversial bipartisan provisions. 
I wish to give a couple of examples.
  Under the Surface Transportation Conference Report, which we will be 
voting on later today, we included changes in the bank exam cycle for 
small banks--a major help for community banks. It was sponsored by 
Senator Toomey and Senator Donnelly, a Republican and a Democrat. It 
streamlines privacy notices. It is something I had worked on last 
session as a sponsor. This session Senator Moran and Senator Heitkamp 
introduced it. It allows privately insured credit unions to become 
members of the Federal Home Loan Bank system, something I have worked 
on for some time. We have put these in the Transportation bill. We have 
done what we should do for community banks--not everything we should 
do, but we have done much of the agenda for the community banks and the 
small credit unions.
  Our goal is to do this right, to debate these issues on the floor, 
and to help those institutions under $10 billion. They didn't cause the 
financial crisis; we know that--nor did banks the size of Huntington, 
$55 billion; of Fifth Third Bank, $130 billion. KeyCorp was $90 billion 
and is about to do an acquisition that will make them a little larger.
  As the ranking member of Senate banking, I have heard time and again 
the calls for legislation to undermine the new financial rules. Let's 
help these community banks, but let's not do the bidding of Wall 
Street. In this bill, we are helping those community banks be more 
efficient, be able to cut some of their administrative costs, and still 
protect consumers.
  What people want to do in the back room on the omnibus bill is jam 
all kinds of issues through the Senate that, frankly, are weakening 
Dodd-Frank. It will challenge and undermine the financial stability of 
our system.
  It is pretty clear to me that far too many Members of this body have 
forgotten the lessons and forgotten what happened in 2007 to our 
country and to people in our great country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.


                              Gun Control

  Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, the tragic murders that occurred in 
California yesterday are unthinkable and by all standards horrific. My 
thoughts and prayers today go out to all of the victims, their 
families, and the entire community. Today I would also like to take a 
moment to thank the brave first responders there who selflessly and 
honorably risked their own lives in order to protect the lives of 
others.
  Following the tragic events of yesterday, President Obama 
unsurprisingly called to limit the Second Amendment rights of the 
American people through stricter gun control. I believe this is yet 
another example of the President using tragic events to push his 
political agenda.
  Infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear 
arms is not the answer to curbing violent crime in America. Restrictive 
gun control measures only prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting 
themselves because criminal criminals, by definition, refuse to follow 
the law.
  In addition to President Obama's misguided calls for gun control, he 
recently issued an Executive order to remove unarmed military surplus 
vehicles that were obtained through the section 1033 program from local 
law enforcement. These vehicles have been valuable to local law 
enforcement officials in my home State of Alabama, specifically in 
Calhoun County. They were also used by the local law enforcement people 
seeking to protect those in harm's way yesterday in California.
  I have called on the President to reverse the dangerous decision he 
made in which he abuses the authority of his office, I believe, by 
making unilateral decisions through executive fiat. During this time of 
increased uncertainty at home and abroad, I believe the American people 
are looking to us for certainty that we will do everything in our power 
to keep them safe.
  Unfortunately, I believe President Obama has once again chosen to 
attack and weaken law enforcement and law-abiding citizens instead of 
focusing on fighting against criminals and radical Islamic terrorists.
  Let me be clear here today. The President's calls to increase gun 
control and remove equipment from law enforcement used to keep us safe 
only undermines the safety and security of the American people. We 
simply cannot and must not continue to let this administration infringe 
upon our constitutional rights and put law-abiding Americans in harm's 
way. I hope we will continue to fight for our constitutional rights 
here.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                              Nominations

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, shortly I will be asking consent to 
advance certain nominations of the President for confirmation by the 
Senate. I do that in my capacity as the ranking Democrat on the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee. There are seven that I will bring up 
today, but there are many more waiting for action. Seven represents 
some of these nominees. There are others waiting for action.
  What these seven all have in common--all seven--is that they are well 
qualified for the position, they have gone through the process in the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee--the committee of jurisdiction--they 
have had hearings, there have been questions asked, the vetting has 
been done, and they have cleared the committee by unanimous vote. There 
is no reason to withhold their confirmation when looking at their 
qualifications for the positions they have been nominated for.
  In some cases, these nominees have been waiting as long as 6 months 
for confirmation on the floor of the Senate. In each of these 
instances, we are talking about confirming individuals to positions 
that have importance for our national security and that will be 
directly involved in protecting our country. Recent events only 
underscore the importance to have confirmed executive nominees to 
handle the challenges that are brought before our country.


         Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar No. 375

  Let me start by first mentioning Tom Shannon. Tom Shannon has been 
nominated to be Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs and is 
the Department's fourth ranking official, responsible for the 
management of six regional bureaus of the Department as well as the 
Bureau of International Organization Affairs. This is a tremendously 
important leadership position on key national security issues.
  Among the many issues with which the Under Secretary will contend, we 
have the implementation of the Iran nuclear deal. This is the person 
who is responsible within the State Department as its top management, 
and I think every Member of the Senate wants to see this implementation 
done in a way that prevents Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state. 
This individual also will be monitoring the civil wars raging in Syria, 
Libya and Yemen, which we know have a major impact on the voids created 
that allow ISIL to be able to gain footholds. The growing turmoil in 
Venezuela, the conflict in eastern Ukraine, and the need to ensure the 
full implementation of the Minsk agreement, as it relates to Ukraine, 
are all on the plate of the person who holds this position.
  Tom Shannon has been nominated and has gone through the process. He 
has received the full support of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee. He is a seasoned diplomat. We are fortunate that Ambassador 
Tom Shannon, a career member of our diplomatic corps who is held in 
universal respect and esteem by his colleagues, has been nominated to 
this position. Few diplomats have served our Nation under

[[Page 19452]]

both Republican and Democratic administrations with as much integrity 
and ability.
  In his current role as Counselor of the Department, he provides the 
Secretary with his insight and advice on a wide range of issues. He has 
previously served as Ambassador to Brazil, as Assistant Secretary of 
State, as Senior Director for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the 
National Security Council, and in challenging posts in Venezuela and 
South Africa, among others. He has also served as Acting Secretary for 
Political Affairs. So he already has the experience and the job 
training in order to accomplish this.
  So as I said, there has been no objection raised as far as his 
qualifications and the need to confirm this appointment.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 
375; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or 
debate on the nomination; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider 
be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, reserving the right to object, in the 
hours that have followed the tragic shooting in San Bernardino, when 
all our prayers are with the families of those who were murdered and 
those who were injured, more and more of us are becoming concerned that 
this reflects a manifestation of radical Islamic terrorism here in 
America. The facts are still not entirely clear, but in the wake of the 
Paris attack, it is appearing more and more likely that is what this 
was.
  In the wake of these horrific attacks by radical Islamic terrorists, 
it has become abundantly clear that President Obama's Iranian nuclear 
deal----
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senator's comments come off Republican time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CRUZ. I didn't hear.
  Mr. CARDIN. This is your time, not our time.
  Mr. CRUZ. Sure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the time consumed by the 
Senator from Texas will come off the Republican time.
  Mr. CRUZ. In light of these terrorist attacks, President Obama's 
Iranian nuclear deal looks worse and worse and worse.
  The idea that the United States of America would be sending over $100 
billion to the Ayatollah Khamenei--the leading financier of terrorism 
in the world--is profoundly foolhardy. At the time that deal was being 
negotiated, I sent a letter to Secretary Kerry informing Secretary 
Kerry that under no circumstances should the Obama administration 
attempt to go to the United Nations and circumvent Congress with this 
foolhardy and catastrophic deal. In that letter to Secretary Kerry I 
said explicitly: Under no circumstances should the executive branch 
take such action before the congressional review process is complete. 
Thus, I ask that you provide written assurances that you will take all 
necessary steps to block any U.N. Security Council resolution approving 
the JCPOA until the statutory time line for congressional review has 
run its course. Until you provide such assurances, I intend to block 
all nominees for the Department of State and hold any legislation that 
reauthorizes funds for the Department of State.
  This was fair warning, given ahead of time, that the State Department 
should not try to circumvent the Congress, should not try to undermine 
U.S. sovereignty, and should not go to the United Nations to try to 
approve a deal--particularly a deal that profoundly endangers the 
national security of this country. The Obama administration ignored my 
warnings and went to the United Nations anyway.
  I would note that under the terms of the Congressional Review Act, 
the congressional review period has not yet run. The Congressional 
Review Act says that time does not begin to run until the President 
submits the entire deal to Congress. That statute defines the entire 
deal to include any and all side agreements. We know of at least two 
side agreements governing inspections that have not yet been given to 
this body. So, accordingly, the congressional review period has not yet 
begun, much less ceased.
  When I told Secretary Kerry that if the State Department circumvented 
Congress and went to the United Nations, I would block State Department 
nominees, that was not an empty threat. Therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I certainly understand the right of the 
Senator to object. I would just hope that this could be resolved. It is 
not about the State Department being put at a disadvantage by not 
having these confirmed positions; it is the American people. These are 
security positions for which we have to have representatives, and not 
only of the State Department. As I go through these nominations, we 
will be talking about the Legal Adviser at the Department of State, and 
we will be talking about ambassadors.


         Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar No. 204

  Next, Madam President, let me mention Brian Egan to be State 
Department Legal Adviser. The Legal Adviser is the principal adviser to 
the Department of State on all legal matters, domestic and 
international, arising in the context of the work of the Secretary of 
State and the Department as a whole. The Legal Adviser also advises the 
President and the National Security Council, as well as other Federal 
agencies, on all legal matters involving the conduct of foreign 
relations.
  I think we are all familiar with the challenges we have that are 
raised every day in the Senate--issues raised about whether this is 
legally acceptable or not. We really should have a confirmed Legal 
Adviser to the State Department in order to respond to the concerns not 
only of the Congress but of the American people and our international 
partners.
  Like Ambassador Shannon, Mr. Eagan has also served in both Republican 
and Democratic administrations. He entered public service in 2005 as a 
civil servant in the Office of Legal Adviser of the State Department, 
which was headed at the time by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. He 
has worked in the private sector. He has served as Assistant General 
Counsel for Enforcement and Intelligence at the Treasury Department. He 
has served on the National Security Council staff.
  His is a nonpartisan, fairminded individual who clearly has the 
skills and ability to advise our policymakers well and lead the Office 
of Legal Adviser.
  He has been waiting since June for floor action. This is not a matter 
that just recently came to the floor of the Senate. He has been waiting 
since June. It has now been 6 months.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 
204; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or 
debate on the nomination; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider 
be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, reserving the right to object, the single 
greatest national security threat facing the United States today is the 
threat of a nuclear Iran. The President's catastrophic Iran deal only 
increases the likelihood the Ayatollah Khamenei will possess nuclear 
weapons.
  There are some in this body who suggest we should trust Iran. Well, I 
do trust Iran. When the Ayatollah Khamenei, with a cheering crowd, 
burns Israeli flags and American flags and promises ``Death to 
America,'' I trust the Ayatollah means what he is saying. Therefore, we 
should not be giving him over $100 billion and facilitating his getting 
nuclear weapons. Therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Maryland.

[[Page 19453]]




     Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar Nos. 332 and 333

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I next would like to address the 
nomination of David Robinson to the position of Assistant Secretary of 
State for Conflict and Stabilization Operations.
  The Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations has an important 
role to play in helping the Department of State to address the 
multiplying violent conflicts around the world and the rise of violent 
extremist groups. I don't have to tell this body how many challenges we 
have globally in conflicts dealing with extremists. This is the key 
person to deal with this issue. Ambassador Robinson clearly has the 
background and skills to excel in the position for which he has been 
nominated. He is a career diplomat. This is a career diplomat. This is 
a person who at an early age went into service for our country--at 
great risk, as we know. With over 30 years of experience, he currently 
serves as the Principal Deputy High Representative in Bosnia and 
Herzegovina, where he oversees the implementation of the peace 
agreement that ended the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. He has served 
both Democratic and Republican administrations far and wide under 
dangerous and demanding circumstances. He was the Assistant Chief of 
Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan. Ambassador Robinson 
has served as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Populations, 
Refugees, and Migration, and as U.S. Ambassador to Guyana from 2006 to 
2008, and as Deputy Chief of Mission in Guyana and Paraguay.
  This is a highly qualified individual, a career diplomat who has 
shown his commitment and dedication to serving our country. The 
position he has been nominated for is a critically important position 
at this time in our history.
  Therefore, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: 
Calendar Nos. 332 and 333; that the Senate proceed to vote without 
intervening action or debate on the nominations; that if confirmed, the 
motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I have not 
placed a hold on this nomination, because my hold has been limited to 
political nominees, not to career foreign service officers serving as 
ambassadors. That being said, Mr. Grassley, the senior Senator from 
Iowa, has filed a formal notice of intent to object to this nomination, 
and, therefore, on behalf of the senior Senator from Iowa, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Maryland.


    Unanimous Consent Requests--Executive Calendar Nos. 148 and 263

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, Azita Raji has been nominated for 
Ambassador to Sweden and Samuel Heins as Ambassador to Norway. Having 
representatives on the ground in Scandinavian countries is urgently 
needed. Both Sweden and Norway are key strategic allies and members of 
the Arctic Council. Russia's recent military activities in the Arctic 
and its disputed territorial claims in vast stretches of waters make 
the presence of a strong American voice in Sweden and Norway essential.
  Moreover, nearly 300 Swedish citizens have left to fight in Syria or 
Iraq, making it the second largest country of origin per capita for 
foreign fighters in Europe. Put simply, we need representation in 
Stockholm and Oslo to protect the U.S. strategic interests abroad.
  I particularly want to note the close ties and deep friendship the 
United States and Norway have, symbolized by the 32-foot Christmas tree 
at Union Station that is annually gifted to the American people by 
Norway, their gratitude for U.S. assistance during and after World War 
II.
  Norway is a founding member of NATO alliance and has been more than 
diligent in attending to its obligations. It has contributed personnel 
to NATO's operations in Afghanistan, Libya, and the Balkans. Its former 
Prime Minister currently serves as the 13th Secretary General of NATO. 
Just this year, Norway assumed leadership responsibilities for NATO's 
air-policing mission over the Baltic States and is participating in a 
large-scale NATO anti-submarine exercise.
  I am also pleased to note that these nominees for these critical 
positions have incredible backgrounds. Neither were controversial 
during the consideration by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 
Azita Raji is an accomplished businesswoman with impressive 
international credentials. She was the vice president of J.P. Morgan 
Securities in New York, Tokyo, and Japan. She speaks five languages and 
has published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
  Samuel Heins is not only a highly respected lawyer in his home State 
of Minnesota, but with over 40 years of legal experience he is also a 
distinguished human rights advocate. He founded Minnesota Advocates for 
Human Rights. He was a private citizen member of the 2011 U.S. mission 
to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva and has won human 
rights awards.
  Samuel Heins has been waiting for 200 days. This is not a recent 
matter. Azita Raji has been waiting almost a year for confirmation. 
These are people who are ready to serve our country, critical allies.
  Mr. President, therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: 
Calendar No. 148; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening 
action or debate on the nomination; that if confirmed, the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  This is the Azita Raji nomination
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). Is there objection?
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. When 
Secretary Kerry chose to ignore my request that the State Department 
not submit this catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal to the United 
Nations, Secretary Kerry did so with open eyes. He did so knowing the 
consequences because I had spelled them out explicitly; that the 
political nominees he would want to put forward at the Department of 
State would not proceed if Secretary Kerry chose to undermine the 
authority of the Congress of the United States, to undermine the 
sovereignty of this country, and to instead treat the United Nations as 
the relevant decisionmaking body. He did so nonetheless.
  As a consequence, the Obama administration is proceeding forward 
under this Iranian nuclear deal as if it is binding law. The Obama 
administration is proceeding ultra vires. They are proceeding contrary 
to law under the explicit terms of the Congressional Review Act. The 
period of time for congressional review has not begun to commence 
because the Obama administration has not submitted the entire deal to 
the U.S. Congress. They have not submitted the side deals. As a 
consequence, under explicit U.S. law, it is contrary to the law for the 
Obama administration to lift sanctions on Iran.
  I wish to note to any bank at home or abroad that is in possession of 
Iranian assets, any bank that chooses to release those assets to the 
Ayatollah Khamenei or to other Iranian interests will be acting 
directly contrary to Federal statutory law. Even though President Obama 
and Secretary Kerry are choosing to disregard the law, that does not 
exonerate the private banks from potential civil liability in the 
billions or even criminal liability. The stakes are too high. I move to 
lay that motion on the table.
  As we wrestle with the ravages of radical Islamic terrorism, the idea 
that the President of the United States is trying to send over $100 
billion to the Ayatollah Khameini--a theocratic zealot who promises 
death to America--makes no sense at all. It means that if and when 
those billions of dollars are used to fund jihadists who murder 
Americans, the blood of those murders will be on this administration's 
hands. If you give billions of dollars to jihadists who have pledged to 
commit

[[Page 19454]]

murder, you cannot wash your hands of responsibility for their doing 
exactly what they have told you they would do. Accordingly, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Let me remind our colleagues we are talking about the 
Ambassador to Sweden.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 
263; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or 
debate on the nomination; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider 
be considered made and laid upon the table.
  This is the Samuel Heins nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Maryland.


         Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar No. 127

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to address the nomination of 
Cassandra Butts to the post to be Ambassador to the Bahamas. Cassandra 
Butts is currently a senior advisor to the CEO of the Millennium 
Challenge Corporation in Washington, DC. She is a leading attorney and 
former Deputy White House Counsel. She is known for her expertise in 
both domestic and foreign policy, particularly in economic development 
and migration policy, due to her work on the board of the National 
Immigration Forum.
  I am confident she will apply these essential skills to the task of 
furthering the bilateral relationships between the Government of the 
Bahamas, a key U.S. Caribbean partner.
  Therefore, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: 
Calendar No. 127; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening 
action or debate on the nomination; that if confirmed, the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. Today the 
single greatest national security threat facing America is the threat 
of a nuclear Iran. President Obama's catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal 
dramatically increases the likelihood that the Ayatollah Khamenei will 
possess nuclear weapons and will use those nuclear weapons to commit 
horrific acts of terror. Moreover, Secretary Kerry's decision to go to 
the United Nations and circumvent the Congress of the United States, 
disregard the authority of the people of the United States was 
unacceptable and was profoundly damaging to this country. Accordingly, 
I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, the nominees I went through unanimous 
consent requests--all are important to our national security. We are 
talking about Ambassadors. We are talking about career people whom we 
depend upon for advice, for handling conflict areas. It is in our 
national security interests to get these nominees confirmed. They have 
been held up for as long as a year in some cases.
  I understand the right of individual Senators. I urge my colleagues, 
we have a responsibility to act on these nominations. I urge my 
colleagues to work with us. I applaud Senator Corker. He has moved 
these nominations through the committee. For these reasons, I urge my 
colleagues to work with us so we can get these individuals serving our 
country. They are public servants and they deserve our consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                               H.R. 1599

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I want to note that right at this moment 
there are Senators of this esteemed body who are doing something that 
is not so esteemed. They are working to put into some of the must-pass 
legislation that we will be considering today and in the days to come 
something known as the DARK Act. The DARK Act is the Deny Americans the 
Right to Know Act. It takes away the ability of States to make sure the 
citizens of their State have the knowledge they would like to have 
about the food they eat.
  We have seen in the toxics discussion in the Senate how important it 
is to individual States to have the ability to identify for their 
citizens what is in the everyday household products they have: their 
spoons, their plates, their bedding, and so forth--but it is much more 
important. It is an order of magnitude more important to citizens to 
have the right at the State level to decide how to inform individuals 
about what is in the food they eat.
  This proposal to put the DARK Act--taking away the rights of the 
States, taking away the rights of citizens to use their democracy to be 
able to know what is in the food they eat--is being proposed to be put 
into a bill in the dark of night. The DARK Act should never go into 
legislation in this Senate. It should never be considered airdropped 
in, in the dark of night, into must-pass legislation. It should be 
debated openly in committee, thoroughly vetted, thoroughly considered, 
because that certainly is the type of consideration merited by an issue 
so fundamental to citizens as knowledge about the food they eat and the 
food their children eat.
  Let us not, as a Senate, commit such a disgraceful act as taking away 
the State right and the individual desire to have knowledge about the 
fundamental food that we consume. Let us not have that airdropped in 
the dark of night. That would be a huge mistake.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it has now been over 5 years since 
President Obama signed into law this so-called Affordable Care Act, a 
sweeping health care overhaul that had passed this Chamber without a 
single Republican vote. While legislation as important as this should 
have been held to the highest standard and included broad bipartisan 
support, President Obama and then the 60-vote congressional Democrats 
relied on fuzzy math and false promises to jam through this enormous, 
unwieldy health care measure that the American people overwhelmingly 
oppose. Such unilateral action has become President Obama's signature 
domestic policy legacy, but today all that bullying and brinkmanship 
comes to a screeching halt.
  The legislation we will vote on today takes a critical step forward 
in lifting the burden that ObamaCare has placed on hard-working 
citizens across the country who have been saddled by rising premiums, 
increased health care costs, and reduced access to doctors and 
hospitals. It continues our long fight to repeal this harmful law and 
build a bridge to health care solutions that work.
  Since ObamaCare's enactment, Americans have been left wondering what 
happened to all the promises: the promise to remove obstacles to 
obtaining coverage, the President's promise to reduce yearly premiums 
by up to $2,500 for a typical family, his promise to maintain existing 
providers. Remember, if you like your doctor you can keep him, his 
promise to prevent any form of new tax increases, and a promise to 
increase competition and provide greater choice.
  Despite all of the President's assurances, ObamaCare has been full of 
empty promises that have made our Nation's health care problems worse. 
One of the reasons I voted against ObamaCare was because despite being 
portrayed as affordable, there were numerous predictions that Americans 
across the country would be faced with increased health care costs. 
Guess what. Such predictions have become reality. Just as recently as 
this past summer, the President promised that under ObamaCare health 
insurance premium increases would be ``modest.'' This is despite the 
fact that the State insurance regulators and actuaries were predicting 
the exact opposite outcome.

[[Page 19455]]

  Let's take a look at how modest these cost increases will be for my 
home State of Arizona. Data released last month by the Department of 
Health and Human Services shows that Americans enrolled in the Federal 
marketplace will see an average premium increase of at least 7.5 
percent with the second lowest so-called silver plans known as 
benchmark plans.
  In Arizona, 24 exchange plans will see double-digit rate hikes in 
2016. In Phoenix, premium increases are projected to top 19 percent. 
The highest average premium increase in my home State is projected to 
reach a whopping 78 percent.
  My constituents in Arizona call and write me daily, begging and 
pleading that something be done to alleviate the financial hardship of 
ObamaCare.
  Thomas from Flagstaff wrote to me and said his monthly premiums 
jumped from $200 to $600 a month. Jim, a resident of Arizona for over 
25 years, will soon pay an additional $160 per week. It goes on and on 
and on. Stories such as these are unacceptable.
  While the President and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
continue to describe ObamaCare as a success, families, patients, 
doctors, and small businesses across America continue to suffer from 
the disastrous effects of the President's failed health care law.
  Today I am proud to once again stand with my Republican colleagues as 
we continue the fight to repeal and replace ObamaCare. From the start, 
I opposed this sweeping scope of the health care law and proudly 
proposed the first Republican amendment to ObamaCare in 2009 which 
would have prevented the President from slashing Medicare by half a 
trillion dollars. Since then, I have continued my efforts by sponsoring 
numerous other pieces of legislation that would lift the burden that 
has been placed on individuals and small businesses alike.
  Most recently, I introduced the Obamacare Opt-Out Act with Senator 
Barrasso in this Congress, which would give Americans the freedom to 
opt-out of the individual mandate for health insurance coverage 
required by ObamaCare. It is critical that we eliminate this costly 
mandate which is estimated to cost Americans who decide not to enroll 
in ObamaCare roughly $695 per adult and $347 per child in 2016 and even 
more in the years ahead.
  This legislation we will vote on today takes an even bigger step 
forward in freeing Americans from the harmful effects of this law. It 
provides relief to individuals and employers alike by eliminating 
costly penalties for those who fail to comply with ObamaCare's mandate. 
It repeals draconian tax increases--such as the medical device tax and 
the Cadillac tax--that have made health care more expensive and driven 
innovative companies to move critical operations and research and 
development overseas. It ensures that Americans will not experience any 
disruption in their health care coverage by delaying the implementation 
date by 2 years. Most importantly, it gets the government out of the 
way and puts patients in charge of their health care decisions and 
needs.
  The fact is, we can repeal and replace ObamaCare with health care 
policies that work. For years I have underscored commonsense policy 
alternatives, such as providing Americans with a direct, refundable tax 
credit to help them pay for private health care, expanding the benefits 
of health savings accounts, passing medical liability reform, or ``tort 
reform,'' and extending the freedom to purchase health care across 
State lines. These are proposals that would provide immediate relief to 
Americans and my fellow Arizonans who have been left to choose between 
buying groceries or paying for health insurance under ObamaCare.
  Perhaps the greatest flaw in President Obama's health care law is 
that it has severely limited consumers' access to quality care. Today, 
limited access is now commonplace, costs are increasing, and government 
bureaucrats remain at the center of an individual's health care 
decisions.
  It is clear that any serious attempt to improve our health care 
system must begin with full repeal and replacement of ObamaCare--a 
mission I remain fully committed to fighting on behalf of the people of 
Arizona.
  I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this critically important bill 
today. It will build a bridge from the President's broken promises to a 
better health care system for hard-working families in Arizona and 
across the country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the vote 
series related to H.R. 3762, there be 2 minutes equally divided between 
each vote and that the first votes in the series be in relation to the 
Murray amendment No. 2876 and the Johnson amendment No. 2875, with a 
60-vote affirmative threshold required for adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENZI. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, we are on the verge of a series of 
votes, and we are also just a few days away from the third anniversary 
of the hideous and horrific shootings at Sandy Hook.
  Once again, the unspeakable has happened in America. The mass murders 
in San Bernardino reminds us of the inaction by this body. Congress has 
become complicit by its inaction in this mass slaughter which continues 
in America. Yet, listening to the debate on the floor, one would think 
it is business as usual.
  We are debating whether to repeal the Affordable Care Act again. How 
many times have we voted on that issue? How many times have we voted to 
defund Planned Parenthood? Yet what we see on the floor of the Senate 
and throughout Congress is a shrug of the shoulders. It can't be done 
or won't be done.
  Now is the time for action. We are past the point of platitudes and 
prayers. We need them. San Bernardino deserves them. But prayers, 
thoughts, and hearts need to be matched by action. The time for action 
is now. We need to pass sensible, commonsense measures that will make 
America safer and better.
  There is no single solution or panacea to stop gun violence, but 
inaction is not an option. A shrug of the shoulders is not acceptable. 
That is not what we were elected to do. We were elected to act and 
provide solutions. Strong laws, such as what we have in Connecticut, 
are a good start, but State laws will not prevent guns from crossing 
borders from States without strong laws. The States with the strongest 
laws are at the mercy of States with the weakest protection because 
borders are porous.
  The question in America today is, What will it take--30,000 deaths a 
year, a mass shooting every day? A mass shooting is four or more 
individuals shot. What will it take for this body to act?
  We are not going away. We are not giving up. We are not abandoning 
this fight. We are on the right side of history, and we will prevail. 
Today will be an opportunity to show which side we are on.
  I urge my colleagues to support these sensible, commonsense 
amendments which will at least take a step--by no means a complete or 
even a fully adequate step--in the right direction.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, this week we have been debating the future 
of ObamaCare, which still remains unworkable, unaffordable, and more 
unpopular than ever. For millions of Americans, the law today 
represents nothing more than broken promises, higher costs, and fewer 
choices. Recent polling shows that most Americans still oppose this 
unprecedented expansion of government intrusion into health care 
decisions for hard-working families and small businesses.
  That is why Leader McConnell promised that we would send a bill to 
the President's desk repealing ObamaCare using budget reconciliation, 
and that is exactly what we are

[[Page 19456]]

doing. There is a special provision under the budget that allows us to 
send a bill to the desk with a majority of votes in the House and a 
majority of votes in the Senate. The majority of votes in the House has 
occurred, and now we are debating changes to that bill.
  The amendment's repeal of ObamaCare allowed under the rules of 
reconciliation--including its taxes, regulations and mandates--sets the 
stage for real health care reforms that strengthen the doctor-patient 
relationship, expands choices, lowers health care cost, and improves 
access to quality, affordable, innovative health care for each and 
every American.
  As I noted at the start of this debate, ObamaCare will crush American 
households with more than $1 trillion in new taxes over the next 10 
years. This means ObamaCare will cost taxpayers more than $116 billion 
every year and result in smaller paychecks for families while holding 
back small businesses from expanding and hiring new workers. For 
hardworking taxpayers, ObamaCare has meant more government, more 
bureaucracy, and more rules and regulations, along with soaring health 
care costs and less access to care.
  By the time we are done, the Senate-passed ObamaCare repeal will 
eliminate more than $1 trillion in tax increases placed on the American 
people, while saving more than $500 billion in spending. Lifting the 
burdens and higher costs the President's law has placed on all 
Americans will help the Nation move forward from ObamaCare's broken 
promises to a better health care system for hardworking families across 
the country.
  ObamaCare contained more than $1 trillion in tax hikes from over 20 
different tax increases. These tax increases included a new excise tax 
on employer-sponsored insurance plans, the so-called ``Cadillac tax,'' 
taxes on insurance providers, prescription drugs, medical devices, a 
new tax on investment income, and additional taxes and other 
restrictions on Health Savings Accounts, among others. Eliminating 
these taxes can help boost economic growth.
  The Senate bill repeals $1 trillion in tax increases included in 
ObamaCare: Cadillac tax, which would force companies to shift costs to 
employees or to reduce the value of the health care benefits they 
provide; medical device tax, which would harm healthcare innovation, 
stifle job creation, and increase the difficulty of delivering high 
quality patient care; health insurance tax, which would increase health 
insurance premiums; individual and employer mandates, which forced 
people to purchase a government defined level of health insurance; 
prescription drugs taxes, which would make critical medication more 
expensive; and health savings accounts tax, which would essentially 
make over-the-counter medicines more expensive by making them 
ineligible as qualified medical expenses.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, repealing 
ObamaCare would raise economic output, mainly by boosting the supply of 
labor. The resulting increase in public and private sector growth, GDP 
is projected to average .7 percent over the 2021 through 2025 period. 
Alone, those effects would reduce Federal overspending by $216 billion 
over the 2016 to 2025 period according to the CBO and Joint Committee 
on Taxation, JCT, estimate.
  ObamaCare included over $800 billion in Medicare cuts. Instead of 
using those savings to strengthen and secure Medicare, the President, 
along with Congressional Democrats, took those funds and used them to 
create new entitlement programs. This bill ends the raid on Medicare to 
pay for ObamaCare and puts those funds back into Medicare, where they 
belong.
  State exchanges were almost exclusively financed through $5.4 billion 
in grant money from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 
CMS. While costing billions of taxpayer dollars from hardworking 
families, most State exchanges have dramatically underperformed or 
failed. Some exchanges have received hundreds of millions of dollars in 
Federal grants, yet are or were unable to accomplish their stated goal. 
In fact, recent news reports highlight more than $474 million of 
taxpayer funds were spent on failed exchanges for Massachusetts, 
Oregon, Nevada, and Maryland. Our measure ends this waste of taxpayer 
dollars.
  Medicaid spending currently consumes nearly a quarter of every State 
dollar, passing education as the largest state budgetary commitment. 
This expansion under ObamaCare includes an unsustainable and costly 
guarantee of 90 to 100 percent Federal funds that will likely be 
shifted back to the States as the Federal Government begins looking for 
ways to cut spending and addressing its almost $19 trillion national 
debt. Most importantly, the bill provides for a transition to a more 
sustainable State partnership.
  As I noted earlier, our Nation has made great strides in improving 
the quality of life for all Americans, but these transformative changes 
were always forged in the spirit of bipartisan compromise and 
cooperation. We still need health care reform, but it has to be done 
the right way. The bill the Senate will approve can help build a bridge 
from these broken promises to better care for each and every American.
  I yield the floor to the Senator from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                               farm bill

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the 2014 farm bill 
and attempts to change it by Members of this Congress. The farm bill 
process was a long, hard, and frustrating exercise. Nobody got 
everything they wanted, but in the end we got a new bill for farmers 
across the country.
  I believe our country needs good farm policy, which means an 
adequate, yet limited safety net for farmers.
  Our farmers face real, uncontrollable risks every year. The farm bill 
provides farmers with a number of programs that help mitigate those 
risks. That is why I was very concerned when I learned the budget deal 
was cutting $3 billion from the Federal crop insurance program.
  That cut would have forced the Risk Management Agency at the 
Department of Agriculture to renegotiate the Standard Reinsurance 
Agreement next year and save $300 million per year. These cuts were 
almost universally opposed by rural America. Lenders, commodity groups, 
input suppliers, and many others opposed the cuts to the crop insurance 
program.
  Beyond being bad policy, I opposed the crop insurance cuts because--
like many of my colleagues on both the House and Senate Agriculture 
committees--I do not support reopening the 2014 farm bill. I am very 
glad the highway bill is going to reverse these cuts to the crop 
insurance program.
  I also want to speak to the importance of not reopening the farm bill 
in the omnibus.
  Section 739 of the House Agriculture Appropriations bill reauthorized 
commodity certificates. For those who don't remember what commodity 
certificates are, they are a way around payment limits. The language in 
the House bill specifically directs the USDA to administer commodity 
certificates as they were in 2008 when they were not subject to any 
payment limits at all.
  I want to be very clear so there is no misunderstanding by those in 
this body or the agriculture lobby. Section 739 of the House 
Agriculture Appropriations bill brings back commodity certificates, 
which reopens the 2014 Farm Bill. If the agriculture community wants to 
be taken seriously, we should heed our own advice and not reopen the 
Farm Bill by reauthorizing commodity certificates.
  I am opposing cuts to the crop insurance program today because that 
would reopen the farm bill. I hope tomorrow I don't have to oppose 
commodity certificates in the Omnibus because a few people want to 
reinstate unlimited farm subsidies.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page 19457]]


  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.


                           Amendment No. 2876

  There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote 
in relation to amendment No. 2876, offered by the Senator from 
Washington, Mrs. Murray.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am well aware that there are serious 
disagreements between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to 
women's health, but I would hope that despite our disagreements, they 
would at least allow us to vote on the important amendment I have 
offered to strike the harmful language defunding Planned Parenthood in 
this legislation and replace it with a new fund to support women's 
health care and clinic safety for staff and patients. Unfortunately, 
apparently my Republican colleagues are going to choose instead to just 
simply push this amendment aside and everything with it that we are 
doing for women and families.
  Well, Planned Parenthood doctors and staff are not going to be pushed 
aside, even by the terrible violence we have seen all too often at 
women's health clinics. They are keeping their doors open. And the 
women and families who rely on these centers for their care and who 
believe women should be able to make their own choices aren't letting 
the political attacks we have seen today get in their way. They are 
standing up for what they believe.
  While Republicans may want to avoid taking this tough vote, Democrats 
are going to keep making it very clear exactly where we stand: with 
Planned Parenthood and with women across the country.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the tabling amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment.
  Senator Murray proposes to establish a new women's health care and 
clinic safety and security fund to ensure that, among other goals, all 
women and men have access to health care services without threat of 
violence. No one disagrees with the goal of making sure all Americans 
have access to health care without fearing threats or violence. We 
certainly don't condone any of the violence anywhere in the United 
States.
  The best way to ensure that women and men have affordable health care 
is to pass this repeal bill and repeal ObamaCare. For every American, 
ObamaCare has meant more government, more bureaucracy, and more rules 
and regulations, along with soaring health care costs and less access 
to care.
  The most effective solution to improving the quality of and access to 
women's health care is to lower the cost and provide access to health 
care, not to create another fund with another new tax. ObamaCare 
already contains more than $1 trillion in new taxes, funding new and 
duplicative programs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. ENZI. I yield back any time, although evidently there is none.
  Mr. President, I move to table the Murray amendment No. 2876 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 motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 311 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

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

                                NAYS--46

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining 
votes be 10 minutes in length and that the following amendments be in 
order following disposition of the Johnson amendment: the Brown-Wyden 
amendment No. 2883 and the Collins amendment No. 2885.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2875

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 2875, offered by 
the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Johnson.
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, on June 15, 2009, President Obama went to 
the American Medical Association to sell his health care plan to the 
doctors and to the American people. President Obama addressed the 
doctors, and he said:

       I know that there are millions of Americans who are content 
     with their health care coverage--they like their plan and, 
     most importantly, they value their relationship with their 
     doctor. They trust you. And that means no matter how we 
     reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American 
     people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep 
     your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you 
     will be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one 
     will take that away, no matter what.

  Now, Mr. President, we all know, unfortunately, that promise has been 
broken. So many people who supported the bill made that similar 
promise. But PolitiFact called it something else; they called it 2013's 
``Lie of the Year.''
  My amendment would restore that promise. My amendment would keep that 
promise to the American people.
  I urge my colleagues, particularly those who made that promise--you 
have the opportunity to restore and convert that lie into a promise.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the amendment that has 
just been described. Our colleague from Wisconsin is seeking to bring 
back the so-called grandfathered health plans that existed between 2010 
and the end of 2013. My view is that this is something of a health care 
Frankenstein. All the plans that were grandfathered on December 31, 
2013, and disappeared on that date would somehow be magically brought 
back to life by the Senator from Wisconsin. That is not the way the 
private health insurance market works in America. Many of the plans 
that were in existence on December 31, 2013, don't exist anymore. In 
the private market, which I support, plans change continually. Plans 
changed in 2014 and they changed again at the beginning of 2015.
  It seems to me that what this amendment does is it distorts the 
private marketplace. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  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 amendment No. 2875.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.

[[Page 19458]]

  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 312 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

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

                                NAYS--44

     Baldwin
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). Under the previous order 
requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is 
rejected.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I have the floor for Senator Enzi and 
myself.


                Amendment No. 2883 to Amendment No. 2874

 (Purpose: To maintain the 100 percent FMAP for the Medicaid expansion 
                              population)

  I call up amendment No. 2883.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Brown] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2883 to amendment No. 2874.

  Mr. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be despensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in the Record of December 2, 2015, under 
``Text of Amendments.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate on the 
amendment.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the Brown-Casey-Wyden-Stabenow-Hirono 
amendment would permanently extend the Medicaid expansion matching rate 
at 100 percent. It would help strengthen Medicaid for 71 million 
Americans who rely on this program for quality, affordable health 
insurance.
  Because of the ACA, more Americans can access comprehensive 
affordable care. Because of the Affordable Care Act, people in my 
State--600,000 Ohioans--now have Medicaid and affordable health 
insurance, in addition to other provisions of ACA. The best way to 
support States that have expanded Medicaid is by making the enhanced 
FMAP permanent.
  Mr. President, that means States will now bear none of the cost of 
Medicaid expansion. We would pay for this amendment by closing 
corporate tax loopholes. It would provide States with fiscal security 
and free up State Medicaid budgets, as I have heard Senator Alexander 
talk about so often. It would free up State Medicaid budgets for higher 
education and other kinds of State expenditures.
  I encourage my colleagues to do the right thing and provide health 
care and to do smart budgeting.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment. I refuse to ask more American taxpayers, who have sacrificed 
so much already, to satiate the boundless Washington appetite for 
spending. Spending on Medicaid has experienced a 137 percent increase 
from $200 billion in 2000 to $476 billion in 2014, and many expect 
those figures to increase.
  We all want individuals to have access to high quality health 
insurance. However, a 2011 study found that 31 percent of doctors are 
unwilling to accept new Medicaid patients. How can Americans access 
quality health care if doctors will not treat them?
  Most importantly, adding more people to Medicaid will lead to a loss 
of jobs. A 2013 study concluded that for every 21 million adults who 
joined Medicaid, the economy will employ 511,000 to 2.2 million fewer 
people. The Obama recovery is a jobless recovery, and I refuse to 
exacerbate the unemployment. Instead of adding more and more people to 
the rolls of a failing Medicaid program----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, the pending amendment No. 2883 offered by 
the Senator from Ohio would cause the underlying legislation to exceed 
the authorizing committee's 302(a) allocation of new budget authority 
or outlays. Therefore, I raise a point of order against this amendment 
pursuant to section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive all applicable 
sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 45, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 313 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

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

                                NAYS--55

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Carper
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 45, the nays are 
55.
  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.
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next 
amendments in order be the following: Casey, No. 2893; and Heller, No. 
2882.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Maine.


                Amendment No. 2885 to Amendment No. 2874

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2885.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2885 to amendment No. 2874.

  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 improve the bill)

       Strike section 101.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, this amendment, which I offer with my 
colleagues Senator Murkowski and Senator Kirk, would strike the 
provisions that would eliminate Federal funding,

[[Page 19459]]

including Medicaid reimbursements, for Planned Parenthood. Otherwise, 
the likely result would be the closure of several hundred clinics 
across the country, depriving millions of women of the health care 
provider of their choice.
  I want to make clear that our amendment does not include any new 
spending, it does not increase taxes, and it retains the current Hyde 
amendment language, which prohibits the use of Federal funds for 
abortions except in cases of rape, incest or where the life of the 
mother is at risk.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, Senator Collins, who is my friend and 
colleague from Maine, would strike a provision in this bill defunding 
Planned Parenthood and would continue directing Federal funds to that 
organization.
  Earlier this year, I joined Senator Ernst, Senator Paul, and other 
colleagues, and we introduced legislation that prohibits taxpayer 
dollars from funding Planned Parenthood and reasserts Congress's 
support for directing those funds to current providers of women's 
health care.
  We absolutely should support health care choices for women. But 
Planned Parenthood is the single largest provider of abortions in the 
country. Directing increased taxpayer dollars to community health 
centers provides quality health care options to women without 
supporting the largest provider of abortions in the country. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  I yield back.
  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 senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 314 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

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

                                NAYS--52

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker
  The amendment (No. 2885) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                Amendment No. 2893 to Amendment No. 2874

       (Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
     establish a credit for married couples who are both employed 
     and have young children, and for other purposes)

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2893.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Casey] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2893 to amendment No. 2874.

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to talk about an amendment that 
deals with a fundamental issue for working families, and that is the 
cost childcare. By way of example, the weekly cost of childcare in 
Pennsylvania, roughly over the last 30 years, has gone up by 70 
percent. In a State like ours that can mean over $10,600 per infant per 
family. We want to make sure this credit is fully available to working 
families. We want to increase the maximum amount to $3,000. Finally, we 
want to make sure it is fully refundable.
  This amendment is paid for by offsets.
  I thank Senator Baldwin for the great work she did with us on this 
amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senators Murray and Reed of Rhode Island 
be added as cosponsors of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment.
  Senators Casey and Baldwin have proposed an amendment to further 
shift the tax burden onto high-income taxpayers. It would pay for new 
tax credits with the Buffett tax through taxing foreign inversion 
corporations as domestic and by expanding limitations on executive 
compensation deductibility.
  This legislation is not the place to add one-sided cuts that have not 
been included in regular order negotiations going on between Congress 
and the administration and in the Finance Committee.
  Further, passing this reconciliation legislation will repeal a dozen 
new taxes used to offset the cost of ObamaCare.
  Comprehensive tax reform is needed to examine our system of credits 
and deductions to create a pro-growth tax policy across income 
spectrums, but not in this bill.
  Washington already takes over $3 trillion per year from the American 
public, which is more than enough to fund necessary government 
functions. Increasing the tax burden on the most successful Americans 
discourages the work and jobs and investment necessary to grow 
America's economy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. ENZI. I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. President, the pending amendment No. 2893 offered by Senator 
Casey would cause the underlying legislation to exceed the authorizing 
committees's 302(a) allocation of new budget authority or outlays. 
Therefore, I raise a point of order against this amendment pursuant to 
section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive all applicable 
sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 46, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 315 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

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

                                NAYS--54

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr

[[Page 19460]]


     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rubio). On this vote, the yeas are 46, 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 the amendment falls.
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, continuing this advanced notice of what is 
coming up, I ask unanimous consent that the next amendment in order be 
the following: Shaheen amendment No. 2892.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nevada.


                Amendment No. 2882 to Amendment No. 2874

  Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2882.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Heller] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2882 to amendment No. 2874.

  Mr. HELLER. 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 strike the reinstatement of the tax on employee health 
              insurance premiums and health plan benefits)

       On page 5, beginning with line 24, strike through page 6, 
     line 3.

  Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, my amendment postpones the implementation 
of the Cadillac tax for the next 10 years. I think that is a good start 
on the legislation we have in front of us today. In fact, I think it is 
a great start, but I think we ought to take the next step. The next 
step is to repeal it altogether, and that is exactly what this 
amendment does. It is the only bipartisan piece of legislation that 
does just that.
  To that end, I thank the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Heinrich, for 
his help and support in moving this legislation forward to where we are 
today.
  Mr. President, there is no opposition to this legislation. There is 
no opposition in America to this legislation. I have 83 groups and 
organizations around this country. Unions support this amendment. The 
Chamber supports this amendment. Seniors support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. MURRAY. We yield back our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. HELLER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 10, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 316 Leg.]

                                YEAS--90

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

                                NAYS--10

     Boxer
     Carper
     Coats
     Corker
     Durbin
     Kaine
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Sasse
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 2882) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next 
amendments in order be the following: Cornyn amendment No. 2912 and 
Feinstein amendment No. 2910.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, for the information of my colleagues, I 
expect the amendments next in order after those will be Grassley 
amendment No. 2914, followed by Manchin amendment No. 2908, but that is 
not locked in yet.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                Amendment No. 2892 to Amendment No. 2874

  (Purpose: To improve mental health and substance use prevention and 
                               treatment)

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2892.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mrs. Shaheen] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2892 to amendment No. 2874.

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, we are facing a public health emergency 
in New Hampshire and States across the country. Heroin and opioid abuse 
are at epidemic levels. This is important because it affects every 
State that is represented on the Senate floor. Each day, 120 Americans 
die of drug overdose; that is 2 deaths every hour. In New Hampshire we 
are losing one person every day from drug overdose. Drug overdose 
deaths have exceeded car crashes as the No. 1 cause of fatalities in 
this country.
  This amendment recognizes that this is a public health emergency and 
that we need to provide additional resources to address it.
  It does three things. First, it ensures that all health plans bought 
on the exchange cover mental health and addiction-related benefits. 
Second, it eliminates the Medicaid coverage exclusion that currently 
prohibits reimbursement for critically important inpatient facilities 
that treat mental illness. That is the 16-bed limit on those inpatient 
treatment facilities. Finally, it provides much needed funding to help 
States, municipalities, and their implementing partners prevent and 
treat mental illness and substance use disorders.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. This is a public health emergency. This amendment is 
fully paid for. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment. I share my colleague's concern with the current state of 
mental health and substance abuse policies in the United States. Our 
health care system in many ways has failed to treat those who need care 
most desperately. However, as deeply as I believe we must strengthen 
mental health, I believe we have to do it right.
  Consideration of mental health legislation should be thoughtful and 
should examine the real barriers to appropriate treatment. Simply 
throwing more money at the problem has proven time and again to be 
ineffective. That is why I am proud of the work being done by the 
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Chairman Alexander, 
Ranking Member Murray, and 26 other Senators, including me, support the 
Mental Health Awareness

[[Page 19461]]

and Improvement Act. That bill takes important steps to increase mental 
health awareness, prevention, and education; encourages the sharing of 
relevant mental health information; and assesses the barriers to 
integrating mental and behavioral health into primary care. It is a 
good step and should be done through the committee process.
  I thank Senator Shaheen for offering this amendment and support the 
intent, but it has to be done right. And this increases taxes.
  Mr. President, the pending amendment No. 2892 offered by Senator 
Shaheen would cause the underlying legislation to exceed the 
authorizing committee's 302(a) allocation of new budget authority or 
outlays. Therefore, I raise a point of order against this amendment 
pursuant to section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act for 
purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 317 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

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

                                NAYS--52

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Warner
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are 
52.
  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.
  The majority whip.


                Amendment No. 2912 to Amendment No. 2874

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2912.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2912 to amendment No. 2874.

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this is an alternative to the Feinstein 
amendment we will be voting on next. Under the Feinstein amendment, the 
government without due process can take away from you valuable 
constitutional rights. They happen to be Second Amendment rights 
without notice and the opportunity to be heard. If you believe that the 
Federal Government is omniscient and all competent, vote for the 
Feinstein amendment, but I wish to point out that even our former 
colleague Teddy Kennedy was on this terror watch list at one point. 
Despite numerous efforts to try to get off of it, he never could--as 
well as our friend Catherine Stevens, former Ted Stevens' spouse.
  My amendment would provide that due process, notice, and an 
opportunity to be heard, and provide new tools and increased 
authorities to prevent terrorism and prevent violence by blocking the 
transfer of firearms following that notice and opportunity to be heard, 
which would also give the judicial authority an opportunity to grant an 
emergency terrorism order which would actually detain the person who is 
identified and proven to be a terrorist.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, to give law 
enforcement the ability to take terrorists off the streets and prevent 
them from obtaining firearms while preserving important constitutional 
rights of law-abiding Americans.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have great respect for the senior Senator 
from Texas, a former member of the Texas Supreme Court. How he could 
make an argument like this is beyond my ability to comprehend.
  This Republican amendment ties the hands of law enforcement. This 
amendment doesn't keep terrorists from getting guns. It simply delays 
their efforts for up to 72 hours. This amendment means that all a 
lawyer needs to do is gum up the works for a short time and an FBI 
terrorist suspect can walk away with a firearm--a legal firearm. That 
would be relatively easy to do. There are a lot of lawyers in this 
Chamber. Courts can't do virtually anything in 72 hours. How long does 
it take to shoot up a school, a mall, someone's home? Fifteen minutes? 
Five minutes? You could be on the terrorist watch list, go buy a gun, 
and let the time go by.
  This is outrageous that people would try to run from this amendment. 
If you are on a terrorist watch list, you shouldn't be able to buy a 
gun. This would allow a terrorist to not only buy a gun but keep it for 
up to 72 hours.
  The second aspect of this amendment is equally alarming. It takes 
money away from law enforcement. Here again, we are voting on something 
again and again. We already voted down this Vitter amendment, sanctuary 
cities bill, last month, which strips all local law enforcement from 
vital Federal community policing grants.
  I am using a little bit of my leader time right now.
  This strips local law enforcement from vital Federal community 
policing grants, targeted public safety and to build community trust. 
It cuts community development block grants, and the purpose of this is 
to ensure affordable housing and provide services to the most 
vulnerable in our communities.
  Very quickly, this amendment takes the FBI out of the equation when 
it comes to keeping guns away from terrorists, and it takes away from 
local law enforcement agencies, threatening public safety. Is it any 
wonder that this is an anti-law enforcement amendment?
  The legislation is opposed by the Fraternal Order of Police, Major 
Cities Chiefs Association, United States Conference of Mayors, and many 
others. This is a dangerous amendment. First of all, to use Senator 
Kennedy, let him be on the watch list. He is not going to go buy a gun 
and hurt anybody. These ridiculous assertions are just that--
ridiculous. We are trying to say if you are on a watch list as being a 
terrorist, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun. It is as simple as that. 
My friend the Senator from California will lay this out. She has been 
the leader on guns in this Chamber for two decades.
  Mr. CORNYN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No time for debate remains.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 10 seconds.

[[Page 19462]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, to accept the argument of the Democratic 
leader, you would have to believe that the Federal Government is always 
right and is all-knowing and can deprive you of valuable constitutional 
rights without giving notice and an opportunity to be heard in front of 
an impartial tribunal--a judge. That is what the Democratic leader is 
suggesting. I think it is wrong and it is un-American. It violates the 
very core constitutional protections afforded to all Americans.
  I urge Senators to vote for my alternative to the Feinstein amendment 
and against the Feinstein amendment, which would deprive people of 
their due process rights under the Constitution.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, there is nothing unconstitutional about 
keeping a terrorist from buying a gun. That is what this is all about. 
Do we want people on a terrorist watch list to go buy a gun? The answer 
is no. That is what this amendment is all about. The Senator from 
California will explain it.
  I raise a point of order against this ridiculous amendment, and I ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974 and the waiver provisions of the applicable budget resolutions, 
I move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable 
budget resolutions for purposes of amendment No. 2912, 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 Virginia (Mr. Warner) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 55, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 318 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

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

                                NAYS--44

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Warner
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 55, the nays are 
44.
  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.
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, continuing to march through the amendments, 
I ask unanimous consent that the next amendments in order be the 
following: Grassley amendment No. 2914 Manchin amendment No. 2908.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from California.


                Amendment No. 2910 to Amendment No. 2874

(Purpose: To increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General 
   to deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of firearms and 
    explosives licenses to known or suspected dangerous terrorists)

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2910.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2910 to amendment No. 2874.

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on an amendment which 
is identical to a bill I have introduced with Republican Congressman 
Peter King. This amendment was proposed by the Bush administration's 
Department of Justice in 2007. It would allow the Attorney General to 
prevent a person from buying a gun or explosive if, one, the recipient 
is a known or suspected terrorist; and, two, the Attorney General has a 
reasonable belief that the recipient would use the firearm in 
connection with a terrorist act.
  The bill has very broad law enforcement support, including the Major 
Cities Chiefs Association and the International Association of Chiefs 
of Police. New York Police Commissioner Bill Bratton, who was also 
chief of the Los Angeles Police Department, recently said on Meet the 
Press:

       If Congress really wants to do something instead of just 
     talking about something, help us out with that Terrorist 
     Watch List, those thousands of people that can purchase 
     firearms in this country. I'm more worried about them than I 
     am about Syrian refugees, to be quite frank with you.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if you believe the Federal Government 
should be able to deprive an American citizen of one of their core 
constitutional rights without notice and an opportunity to be heard, 
then you should vote for the Senator's amendment. This is not the way 
we are supposed to do things in this country. If you think that the 
Federal Government never makes a mistake and that presumptively the 
decisions the Federal Government makes about putting you on a list 
because of some suspicions, then you should vote for the Senator's 
amendment. But we all know better than that. I have used the example of 
Teddy Kennedy, Captain Stevens, and others who were placed on these 
lists.
  At the very least we ought to provide those individuals with an 
opportunity to be notified, and they should have a right to be heard by 
an impartial judicial tribunal to make those decisions.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Senator's amendment.
  I have one other reason. The whole purpose of this amendment is to 
destroy the privileged status of this reconciliation bill. If this bill 
passes, it will destroy our ability to pass this reconciliation bill 
with 51 votes.
  Again, I urge all of my colleagues to vote against it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, the pending amendment No. 2910, offered by 
Senator Feinstein, contains matter that is not within the jurisdiction 
of the Finance Committee or the HELP Committee, and it is extraneous to 
H.R. 3762, a reconciliation bill. Therefore, I raise a point of order 
against the amendment pursuant to section 313(b)(1)(C) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive all applicable 
sections of that act for the purposes of the pending amendment, and I 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.

[[Page 19463]]


  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) 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. 319 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

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

                                NAYS--54

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Warner
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 45, 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 the amendment falls.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, after we finish the Grassley amendment and 
the Manchin amendment, I ask unanimous consent that the next amendments 
in order be the following: Bennet No. 2907 and Paul No. 2899.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa.


                Amendment No. 2914 to Amendment No. 2874

(Purpose: To address gun violence, improve the availability of records 
   to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, address 
mental illness in the criminal justice system, and end straw purchases 
      and trafficking of illegal firearms, and for other purposes)

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2914.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2914 to amendment No. 2874.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. GRASSLEY. The Manchin-Toomey amendment that is going to be up 
next, I am told, won't prevent the next shooting or reduce crime or fix 
our mental health system. We need to also be worried about protecting 
the Second Amendment.
  My amendment addresses the Obama administration's reduction in gun 
prosecutions by providing money to expand Project Exile and funding for 
prosecuting felons and fugitives who fail background checks, targeted 
to the highest crime jurisdictions. It criminalizes straw purchasing 
and gun trafficking, provides more resources for Secure Our Schools 
grants, and increases funding for mental health initiatives. It 
incentivizes States to provide mental health records to the background 
check database, clarifies what records should be submitted to the NCIS 
system, and it provides that military members can buy firearms in their 
State of residence or where they are stationed, so that what happened 
in Chattanooga doesn't happen again. Finally, this amendment also 
reduces funding to those municipalities that continue to defy the law 
with regard to the enforcement of immigration offenses, otherwise known 
as sanctuary cities.
  I ask for adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the victims of gun violence and their 
families deserve more than a moment of silence; they deserve a moment 
of sanity.
  We have coming before us a proposal by a Republican Senator and a 
Democratic Senator, Senator Toomey and Senator Manchin, a proposal to 
close the loopholes so that people who are convicted felons and people 
who are mentally unstable cannot buy firearms. Unfortunately, in the 
100-page amendment being offered by the Senator from Iowa, exactly the 
opposite occurs. The loopholes are opened. When it comes to background 
checks, unfortunately, this doesn't do anything.
  It does do one thing: It reduces the amount of money available to 
police departments and COP grants all across the United States if the 
Senator disagrees with their immigration policy. That is why the 
Fraternal Order of Police opposes it.
  Let's have a moment of sanity. Let's please vote no on the Grassley 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment 
violates section 313(b)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I 
move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget 
resolutions for the purposes of amendment No. 2914, 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 Virginia (Mr. Warner) 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. 320 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

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

                                NAYS--46

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Warner
       
  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 the amendment falls.
  The Senator from West Virginia.

[[Page 19464]]




                Amendment No. 2908 to Amendment No. 2874

     (Purpose: To protect Second Amendment rights, ensure that all 
 individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed 
in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and provide a 
          responsible and consistent background check process)

  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2908.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Manchin] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2908 to Amendment No. 2874.

  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise again today to offer this 
important piece of legislation with my good friend Pat Toomey. It is a 
bipartisan piece of legislation. It makes all the sense in the world. 
Most of America supports the background checks that we are talking 
about.
  As a law-abiding gun owner, I can assure you that basically I have 
been taught not to sell my gun to a stranger, not to sell my gun to a 
criminal, and not to sell my gun to someone who is severely mentally 
ill. That is how we were trained, and that is how most American law-
abiding gun owners are trained. All this bill does is not infringe upon 
the rights of a personal transaction.
  The only thing this piece of legislation does is to close a loophole 
in commercial transactions such as gun shows and Internet sales. I 
don't know if that person is a criminal. I don't know if that person is 
severely mentally ill. I just don't know that person. I was taught not 
to sell to that person or to give to that person unless I knew him.
  This is the most commonsense idea supported by an overwhelming 
majority of Americans and an overwhelming majority of law-abiding gun 
owners in America.
  I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in this 
bipartisan legislation to please support this. It is basically 
something that is long, long overdue, and these tragedies continue to 
happen.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on this side, we yield back all of our 
time.
  Mr. President, the pending amendment No. 2908 contains matter that is 
not within the jurisdiction of the Finance or HELP Committees and is 
extraneous to H.R. 3762, a reconciliation bill. Therefore, I raise a 
point of order that the pending amendment violates section 313(b)(1)(C) 
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive all applicable 
sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) 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 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 321 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

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

                                NAYS--50

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Johnson
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 48, the nays are 
50.
  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.
  The Senator from Colorado.


                Amendment No. 2907 to Amendment No. 2874

  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2907.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Bennet] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2907 to amendment No. 2874.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide additional amounts to the Department of Veterans 
  Affairs to increase the access of veterans to care and improve the 
 physical infrastructure of the Department of Veterans Affairs and to 
           impose a fair share tax on high-income taxpayers)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO INCREASE ACCESS OF VETERANS 
                   TO CARE AND IMPROVE PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE OF 
                   DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, with respect to 
     any increase in revenues received in the Treasury as the 
     result of the enactment of section 59A of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986--
       (1) $20,000,000,000 shall be made available, without 
     further appropriation, to carry out the purposes described in 
     section 801(b) of the Veterans Access, Choice, and 
     Accountability Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-146; 38 U.S.C. 
     1701 note); and
       (2) any remaining amounts shall be used for Federal budget 
     deficit reduction or, if there is no Federal budget deficit, 
     for reducing the Federal debt in such manner as the Secretary 
     of the Treasury considers appropriate.

     SEC. ___. FAIR SHARE TAX ON HIGH-INCOME TAXPAYERS.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new part:
  


          ``PART VII--FAIR SHARE TAX ON HIGH-INCOME TAXPAYERS

``Sec. 59A. Fair share tax.

     ``SEC. 59A. FAIR SHARE TAX.

       ``(a) General Rule.--
       ``(1) Impositition of tax.--In the case of any high-income 
     taxpayer, there is hereby imposed for a taxable year (in 
     addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax 
     equal to the product of--
       ``(A) the amount determined under paragraph (2), and
       ``(B) a fraction (not to exceed 1)--
       ``(i) the numerator of which is the excess of--

       ``(I) the taxpayer's adjusted gross income, over
       ``(II) the dollar amount in effect under subsection (c)(1), 
     and

       ``(ii) the denominator of which is the dollar amount in 
     effect under subsection (c)(1).
       ``(2) Amount of tax.--The amount of tax determined under 
     this paragraph is an amount equal to the excess (if any) of--
       ``(A) the tentative fair share tax for the taxable year, 
     over
       ``(B) the excess of--
       ``(i) the sum of--

       ``(I) the regular tax liability (as defined in section 
     26(b)) for the taxable year, determined without regard to any 
     tax liability determined under this section,
       ``(II) the tax imposed by section 55 for the taxable year, 
     plus
       ``(III) the payroll tax for the taxable year, over

       ``(ii) the credits allowable under part IV of subchapter A 
     (other than sections 27(a), 31, and 34).
       ``(b) Tentative Fair Share Tax.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       ``(1) In general.--The tentative fair share tax for the 
     taxable year is 30 percent of the excess of--
       ``(A) the adjusted gross income of the taxpayer, over

[[Page 19465]]

       ``(B) the modified charitable contribution deduction for 
     the taxable year.
       ``(2) Modified charitable contribution deduction.--For 
     purposes of paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) In general.--The modified charitable contribution 
     deduction for any taxable year is an amount equal to the 
     amount which bears the same ratio to the deduction allowable 
     under section 170 (section 642(c) in the case of a trust or 
     estate) for such taxable year as--
       ``(i) the amount of itemized deductions allowable under the 
     regular tax (as defined in section 55) for such taxable year, 
     determined after the application of section 68, bears to
       ``(ii) such amount, determined before the application of 
     section 68.
       ``(B) Taxpayer must itemize.--In the case of any individual 
     who does not elect to itemize deductions for the taxable 
     year, the modified charitable contribution deduction shall be 
     zero.
       ``(c) High-Income Taxpayer.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `high-income taxpayer' means, 
     with respect to any taxable year, any taxpayer (other than a 
     corporation) with an adjusted gross income for such taxable 
     year in excess of $1,000,000 (50 percent of such amount in 
     the case of a married individual who files a separate 
     return).
       ``(2) Inflation adjustment.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of a taxable year beginning 
     after 2016, the $1,000,000 amount under paragraph (1) shall 
     be increased by an amount equal to--
       ``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
       ``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under 
     section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable 
     year begins, determined by substituting `calendar year 2015' 
     for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.
       ``(B) Rounding.--If any amount as adjusted under 
     subparagraph (A) is not a multiple of $10,000, such amount 
     shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $10,000.
       ``(d) Payroll Tax.--For purposes of this section, the 
     payroll tax for any taxable year is an amount equal to the 
     excess of--
       ``(1) the taxes imposed on the taxpayer under sections 
     1401, 1411, 3101, 3201, and 3211(a) (to the extent such tax 
     is attributable to the rate of tax in effect under section 
     3101) with respect to such taxable year or wages or 
     compensation received during such taxable year, over
       ``(2) the deduction allowable under section 164(f) for such 
     taxable year.
       ``(e) Special Rule for Estates and Trusts.--For purposes of 
     this section, in the case of an estate or trust, adjusted 
     gross income shall be computed in the manner described in 
     section 67(e).
       ``(f) Not Treated as Tax Imposed by This Chapter for 
     Certain Purposes.--The tax imposed under this section shall 
     not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of 
     determining the amount of any credit under this chapter 
     (other than the credit allowed under section 27(a)) or for 
     purposes of section 55.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of parts for subchapter 
     A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

         ``Part VII--Fair Share Tax on High-Income Taxpayers''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2015.

  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, this amendment will help improve access to 
care for veterans all across the country and fill a huge unmet need. It 
provides funding to hire more doctors, nurses, social workers, and 
mental health professionals to serve our veterans. It will also help 
improve VA medical facilities by supporting upgrades and minor 
construction improvements.
  In Colorado, our VA system has been plagued by long waiting times and 
a lack of access. Across the State, we have shortages of physicians, 
nurses, and mental health professionals, particularly in rural areas 
such as Alamosa and the San Luis Valley. We also know all too well in 
Colorado that much more accountability is needed within the VA, and we 
will continue to work to improve a bureaucracy that has plagued access 
to quality care.
  The 400,000 veterans in Colorado and across the Nation deserve the 
best care we can offer. They deserve what they have been promised. This 
amendment is fully paid for, and I urge my colleagues to vote yes on 
this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment. I commend my colleague from Colorado for working to advance 
the needs of veterans. However, Senator Bennet proposes a $20-billion 
increase in spending paid for by a tax increase.
  I believe the problem with Washington's finances is that our 
government spends too much and lives outside its means. I am 
continually working to put our country's finances on a sustainable path 
so that more Americans can keep more of their hard-earned money. What 
we don't need are higher taxes, and we do need bills that go through 
the proper committees.
  Congress has continually rejected this one-sided tax policy. 
Comprehensive tax reform is needed to examine our system of credits. 
Washington already takes $3 trillion per year from the American public, 
which is more than enough to fund necessary government functions, 
provided we get through the regular process. So I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this.
  Mr. President, the pending amendment No. 2907 would cause the 
underlying legislation to exceed the authorizing committee's 302(a) 
allocation of new budget authority or outlays. Therefore, I raise a 
point of order against this amendment pursuant to section 302(f) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, first, through the Chair, I say thank you 
to my colleague from Wyoming for his kind words about our efforts with 
respect to veterans.
  Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I 
move to waive all applicable provisions of that act for purposes of the 
pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 322 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

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

                                NAYS--52

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are 
52.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, next up of course will be the Paul 
amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that following the vote on that amendment, 
the next amendments in order be the following: Cardin amendment No. 
2913 and Coats amendment No. 2888.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Kentucky.

[[Page 19466]]




                Amendment No. 2899 to Amendment No. 2874

  (Purpose: To prevent the entry of extremists into the United States 
           under the refugee program, and for other purposes)

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2899.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Paul] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2899 to amendment No. 2874.

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes evenly divided.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, we spend hundreds of billions of dollars 
defending our country, and yet we cannot truly defend our country 
unless we defend our border. My bill would place pause on issuing visas 
to countries that are at high risk for exporting terrorists to us. My 
bill would also say to visa waiver countries that in order to come and 
visit, you would have to go through global entry, which would require a 
background check.
  I urge Senators who truly do want to defend our country and have 
increased border security to vote for this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I hate to say this to my good friend from 
Kentucky, but this is a bumper sticker kind of amendment. It says it 
would keep us secure, but it would even stop tourists from visiting 
this country for at least 30 days.
  Let's say you have a relative who is dying in this country, you will 
have to call them up and say: Don't die for at least 30 days so I can 
come over and say goodbye to you. It stops some of our closest allies 
in the Middle East. Jordan is probably our closest ally, and this 
legislation would stop us from issuing visas there.
  It doesn't make us safer. It kills our tourist industry, it damages 
our economy, but most importantly it makes it look to the rest of the 
world like we are cowering in our shoes. I don't want to do that.
  Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment 
violates section 313(b)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of the applicable budget 
resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act and 
applicable budget resolutions for purposes of amendment No. 2899, and I 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand that there is going to be a 
request for a 60-vote margin on this vote. If my understanding of that 
is correct, I withdraw my point of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a 60-
vote threshold for adoption of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 10, nays 89, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 323 Leg.]

                                YEAS--10

     Barrasso
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Kirk
     Lee
     Moran
     Paul
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Vitter

                                NAYS--89

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator McCain 
be recognized to offer amendment No. 2884.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.


                Amendment No. 2884 to Amendment No. 2874

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2884.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2884 to amendment No. 2874.

  Mr. McCAIN. 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 amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to allow 
for the personal importation of safe and affordable drugs from approved 
                         pharmacies in Canada)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. SAFE AND AFFORDABLE DRUGS FROM CANADA.

       Chapter VIII of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
     (21 U.S.C. 381 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 810. IMPORTATION BY INDIVIDUALS OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS 
                   FROM CANADA.

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act, not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 
     of this section, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations 
     permitting individuals to safely import into the United 
     States a prescription drug described in subsection (b).
       ``(b) Prescription Drug.--A prescription drug described in 
     this subsection--
       ``(1) is a prescription drug that--
       ``(A) is purchased from an approved Canadian pharmacy;
       ``(B) is dispensed by a pharmacist licensed to practice 
     pharmacy and dispense prescription drugs in Canada;
       ``(C) is purchased for personal use by the individual, not 
     for resale, in quantities that do not exceed a 90-day supply;
       ``(D) is filled using a valid prescription issued by a 
     physician licensed to practice in a State in the United 
     States; and
       ``(E) has the same active ingredient or ingredients, route 
     of administration, dosage form, and strength as a 
     prescription drug approved by the Secretary under chapter V; 
     and
       ``(2) does not include--
       ``(A) a controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of 
     the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
       ``(B) a biological product (as defined in section 351 of 
     the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262));
       ``(C) an infused drug (including a peritoneal dialysis 
     solution);
       ``(D) an intravenously injected drug;
       ``(E) a drug that is inhaled during surgery;
       ``(F) a parenteral drug;
       ``(G) a drug manufactured through 1 or more biotechnology 
     processes, including--
       ``(i) a therapeutic DNA plasmid product;
       ``(ii) a therapeutic synthetic peptide product of not more 
     than 40 amino acids;
       ``(iii) a monoclonal antibody product for in vivo use; and
       ``(iv) a therapeutic recombinant DNA-derived product;

[[Page 19467]]

       ``(H) a drug required to be refrigerated at any time during 
     manufacturing, packing, processing, or holding; or
       ``(I) a photoreactive drug.
       ``(c) Approved Canadian Pharmacy.--
       ``(1) In general.--In this section, an approved Canadian 
     pharmacy is a pharmacy that--
       ``(A) is located in Canada; and
       ``(B) that the Secretary certifies--
       ``(i) is licensed to operate and dispense prescription 
     drugs to individuals in Canada; and
       ``(ii) meets the criteria under paragraph (3).
       ``(2) Publication of approved canadian pharmacies.--The 
     Secretary shall publish on the Internet Web site of the Food 
     and Drug Administration a list of approved Canadian 
     pharmacies, including the Internet Web site address of each 
     such approved Canadian pharmacy, from which individuals may 
     purchase prescription drugs in accordance with subsection 
     (a).
       ``(3) Additional criteria.--To be an approved Canadian 
     pharmacy, the Secretary shall certify that the pharmacy--
       ``(A) has been in existence for a period of at least 5 
     years preceding the date of such certification and has a 
     purpose other than to participate in the program established 
     under this section;
       ``(B) operates in accordance with pharmacy standards set 
     forth by the provincial pharmacy rules and regulations 
     enacted in Canada;
       ``(C) has processes established by the pharmacy, or 
     participates in another established process, to certify that 
     the physical premises and data reporting procedures and 
     licenses are in compliance with all applicable laws and 
     regulations, and has implemented policies designed to monitor 
     ongoing compliance with such laws and regulations;
       ``(D) conducts or commits to participate in ongoing and 
     comprehensive quality assurance programs and implements such 
     quality assurance measures, including blind testing, to 
     ensure the veracity and reliability of the findings of the 
     quality assurance program;
       ``(E) agrees that laboratories approved by the Secretary 
     shall be used to conduct product testing to determine the 
     safety and efficacy of sample pharmaceutical products;
       ``(F) has established, or will establish or participate in, 
     a process for resolving grievances and will be held 
     accountable for violations of established guidelines and 
     rules;
       ``(G) does not resell products from online pharmacies 
     located outside Canada to customers in the United States; and
       ``(H) meets any other criteria established by the 
     Secretary.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. For how long?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. For 1 minute.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to pay attention to 
the following: For a drug called Glumetza, the price in Canada is $157 
for 90 tablets; the price in the United States is $4,643 for 90 
tablets. Edecrin in Canada costs $607 per vial; in the United States, 
it costs $4,600 per vial. Biltricide costs $10.50 per tablet in Canada 
and $81 in the United States.
  The list goes on and on.
  My dear friends, let our citizens go to Canada and buy their 
prescription drugs. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with 
allowing them to be able to spend $157 for 90 tablets in Canada instead 
of $4,643 for 90 tablets? I will tell my colleagues what it is. It is 
the power of the pharmaceutical companies that will prevent us from 
letting Americans go to Canada and get those pharmaceuticals at a 
reasonable price.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. McCAIN. Tragically, because this will be subject to a 60-vote 
threshold----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Tragically, some stooge of the pharmaceutical company 
will object on a budget point of order, so I will withdraw the 
amendment. But, my friends, you have not heard the last of this 
wonderful issue that I am having so much fun with but which is 
important to all of our constituents who are paying outrageous prices 
to the pharmaceutical companies.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Arizona be given an additional half hour to explain his views.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BARRASSO. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.


                      Amendment No. 2884 Withdrawn

  Mr. McCAIN. I withdraw the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The Senator from Maryland.


                Amendment No. 2913 to Amendment No. 2874

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2913.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2913 to amendment No. 2874.

  Mr. CARDIN. 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 amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the 
special rule for seniors relating to the income level for deduction of 
  medical care expenses and to require high-income taxpayers to pay a 
                          fair share of taxes)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. EXTENSION OF SPECIAL RULE FOR SENIORS RELATING TO 
                   INCOME LEVEL FOR DEDUCTION OF MEDICAL CARE 
                   EXPENSES.

       Subsection (f) of section 213 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(f) Special Rule.--In the case of any taxable year 
     beginning after December 31, 2012, and ending before January 
     1, 2024, subsection (a) shall be applied with respect to a 
     taxpayer by substituting `7.5 percent' for `10 percent' if 
     such taxpayer or such taxpayer's spouse has attained age 65 
     before the close of such taxable year.''.

     SEC. ___. FAIR SHARE TAX ON HIGH-INCOME TAXPAYERS.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new part:

          ``PART VII--FAIR SHARE TAX ON HIGH-INCOME TAXPAYERS

``Sec. 59A. Fair share tax.

     ``SEC. 59A. FAIR SHARE TAX.

       ``(a) General Rule.--
       ``(1) Impositition of tax.--In the case of any high-income 
     taxpayer, there is hereby imposed for a taxable year (in 
     addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax 
     equal to the product of--
       ``(A) the amount determined under paragraph (2), and
       ``(B) a fraction (not to exceed 1)--
       ``(i) the numerator of which is the excess of--

       ``(I) the taxpayer's adjusted gross income, over
       ``(II) the dollar amount in effect under subsection (c)(1), 
     and

       ``(ii) the denominator of which is the dollar amount in 
     effect under subsection (c)(1).
       ``(2) Amount of tax.--The amount of tax determined under 
     this paragraph is an amount equal to the excess (if any) of--
       ``(A) the tentative fair share tax for the taxable year, 
     over
       ``(B) the excess of--
       ``(i) the sum of--

       ``(I) the regular tax liability (as defined in section 
     26(b)) for the taxable year, determined without regard to any 
     tax liability determined under this section,

       ``(II) the tax imposed by section 55 for the taxable year, 
     plus
       ``(III) the payroll tax for the taxable year, over

       ``(ii) the credits allowable under part IV of subchapter A 
     (other than sections 27(a), 31, and 34).
       ``(b) Tentative Fair Share Tax.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       ``(1) In general.--The tentative fair share tax for the 
     taxable year is 30 percent of the excess of--
       ``(A) the adjusted gross income of the taxpayer, over
       ``(B) the modified charitable contribution deduction for 
     the taxable year.
       ``(2) Modified charitable contribution deduction.--For 
     purposes of paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) In general.--The modified charitable contribution 
     deduction for any taxable year is an amount equal to the 
     amount which bears the same ratio to the deduction allowable 
     under section 170 (section 642(c) in the case of a trust or 
     estate) for such taxable year as--
       ``(i) the amount of itemized deductions allowable under the 
     regular tax (as defined in section 55) for such taxable year, 
     determined after the application of section 68, bears to
       ``(ii) such amount, determined before the application of 
     section 68.
       ``(B) Taxpayer must itemize.--In the case of any individual 
     who does not elect to itemize deductions for the taxable 
     year, the modified charitable contribution deduction shall be 
     zero.
       ``(c) High-Income Taxpayer.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `high-income taxpayer' means, 
     with respect to any taxable

[[Page 19468]]

     year, any taxpayer (other than a corporation) with an 
     adjusted gross income for such taxable year in excess of 
     $1,000,000 (50 percent of such amount in the case of a 
     married individual who files a separate return).
       ``(2) Inflation adjustment.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of a taxable year beginning 
     after 2016, the $1,000,000 amount under paragraph (1) shall 
     be increased by an amount equal to--
       ``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
       ``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under 
     section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable 
     year begins, determined by substituting `calendar year 2015' 
     for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.
       ``(B) Rounding.--If any amount as adjusted under 
     subparagraph (A) is not a multiple of $10,000, such amount 
     shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $10,000.
       ``(d) Payroll Tax.--For purposes of this section, the 
     payroll tax for any taxable year is an amount equal to the 
     excess of--
       ``(1) the taxes imposed on the taxpayer under sections 
     1401, 1411, 3101, 3201, and 3211(a) (to the extent such tax 
     is attributable to the rate of tax in effect under section 
     3101) with respect to such taxable year or wages or 
     compensation received during such taxable year, over
       ``(2) the deduction allowable under section 164(f) for such 
     taxable year.
       ``(e) Special Rule for Estates and Trusts.--For purposes of 
     this section, in the case of an estate or trust, adjusted 
     gross income shall be computed in the manner described in 
     section 67(e).
       ``(f) Not Treated as Tax Imposed by This Chapter for 
     Certain Purposes.--The tax imposed under this section shall 
     not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of 
     determining the amount of any credit under this chapter 
     (other than the credit allowed under section 27(a)) or for 
     purposes of section 55.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of parts for subchapter 
     A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

         ``Part VII--Fair Share Tax on High-Income Taxpayers''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2015.

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I am not going to ask for a record vote on 
this amendment, and I hope that will help others try to move the 
process along.
  This amendment is very similar to the next amendment, the Coats 
amendment, in that it is a clear indication that the Democrats 
understand that we want to extend the medical expense deduction of 7.5 
percent threshold to seniors, which expires at the end of 2016. The 
difference is that we don't believe it should be paid for on the backs 
of our seniors, and that is why this amendment would have it paid for 
by a minimum tax of 30 percent on those who earn over $1 million 
dollars, the so-called Buffett rule.
  The Coats amendment that is coming up next is on the backs of seniors 
by denying the indexing of the $85,000 threshold for seniors to pay the 
additional Medicare premiums. I will have a chance to talk about that 
in a moment, but this amendment allows us to extend the medical expense 
deduction of 7.5 percent threshold but does it without attacking our 
seniors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Maryland 
for being willing to take a voice vote, knowing that would be in the 
minority.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to amendment No. 2913.
  The amendment (No. 2913) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.


                Amendment No. 2888 to Amendment No. 2874

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2888.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2888 to amendment No. 2874.

  Mr. COATS. 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 amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the 
special rule for seniors relating to the income level for deduction of 
             medical care expenses, and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. EXTENSION OF SPECIAL RULE FOR SENIORS RELATING TO 
                   INCOME LEVEL FOR DEDUCTION OF MEDICAL CARE 
                   EXPENSES.

       Subsection (f) of section 213 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(f) Special Rule.--In the case of any taxable year 
     beginning after December 31, 2012, and ending before January 
     1, 2024, subsection (a) shall be applied with respect to a 
     taxpayer by substituting `7.5 percent' for `10 percent' if 
     such taxpayer or such taxpayer's spouse has attained age 65 
     before the close of such taxable year.''.

     SEC. __. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF THE INFLATION ADJUSTMENT IN 
                   THE CALCULATION OF MEDICARE PART B AND PART D 
                   PREMIUMS.

       Section 1839(i)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395r(i)(5)) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``2018 
     and 2019'' and inserting ``in 2018 through 2025''; and
       (2) in clause (ii), by striking ``2020, August 2018'' and 
     inserting ``2026, August 2024''.

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, similarly, as Mr. Cardin has said, what 
this does is to continue something that was put into the Affordable 
Care Act, a rise between 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income before 
you can begin deducting to 10 percent of adjusted gross income before 
you can deduct. For seniors, an exemption was provided so that seniors 
could stay at the 7.5 percent level. This expires next year. My 
amendment essentially extends this for 7 years. It is to the benefit of 
seniors to do this. For those seniors who find excessive medical 
expenses facing them, this is something that was supported, obviously, 
by everyone across the aisle in the Affordable Care Act, and I am 
extending this for an additional 7 years with this amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to support for low-income and middle-income 
seniors the excessive medical cost by adopting the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I would urge my colleagues to vote against 
this amendment because of how it is paid for. Seniors who have $85,000 
of income have to pay a higher Part B premium today. We have indexed 
that because, as I think Members on both sides of the aisle agree, we 
believe that brackets should have that type of index so that our 
seniors are protected from inflationary growth.
  The problem with the Coats amendment is that he removes that index 
through 2025. This is an attack on our seniors. There is no way that we 
should be paying for this worthwhile extender. I don't disagree with 
the extender, but I do take exception with paying for it on the backs 
of our seniors, and I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, if I could just respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2888.
  Mr. CARDIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 324 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

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

[[Page 19469]]



                                NAYS--39

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Sanders
       
  The amendment (No. 2888) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
disposition of the Paul amendment, Senator McConnell or his designee be 
recognized to offer amendment No. 2916; further, that Senator Reid or 
his designee be recognized to offer Byrd points of order against 
amendment No. 2916 and that Senator McConnell or his designee be 
recognized to make the relevant motion to waive; and that following the 
disposition of the motion to waive, the only three amendments remaining 
in order be the following: Reid amendment No. 2917, Baldwin amendment 
No. 2919, and Murphy amendment No. 2918.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The majority leader.


  Unanimous Consent Agreement--Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 22

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
the disposition of H.R. 3762, the Chair lay before the Senate the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 22; further, that it be in order 
for the majority leader or his designee to offer a cloture motion on 
the conference report; and that notwithstanding the provisions of rule 
XXII, that there be 30 minutes of debate equally divided between the 
two leaders or their designees on the cloture motion; I further ask 
that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote on the 
motion to invoke cloture; finally, if cloture is invoked, all 
postcloture time be yielded back and the Senate vote on adoption of the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 22.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object.
  I am so not going to object. I just wanted to thank you and thank 
everybody. I think this is a moment all of us have waited for, for a 
long time, so I am not objecting.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I wish to announce to everybody there 
will be up to five votes, and on those five votes we will have 10-
minute rollcall votes. We intend to enforce the 10 minutes, so it would 
be a good idea for everybody to stay close to the Chamber.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the direction we are 
going, but I would hope that we would have, really, 10-minute votes. 
One way to enforce that is to have people miss a couple of these votes, 
OK? Because people come strolling in thinking they are going to be 
protected, so I would hope it would be 10-minute votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next 
amendment be Paul amendment No. 2915 and that it be subject to a 60-
vote affirmative threshold for adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Kentucky.


                Amendment No. 2915 To Amendment No. 2874

    (Purpose: To restore Second Amendment rights in the District of 
                               Columbia)

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2915.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Paul] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2915 to amendment No. 2874.

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes equally divided on the 
amendment.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, last week the District of Columbia police 
chief said that if you see an active shooter, take them down. The 
problem is it is very difficult to own a gun in DC, and it is nearly 
impossible to have a gun with you if you were to see an active shooter.
  So my amendment would create a District of Columbia concealed carry 
permit program. It would also allow national reciprocity for concealed 
carry. It would also allow Active-Duty Forces to carry concealed carry-
on Department of Defense properties.
  I ask the Senate and those Senators who believe in self-defense to 
vote for this amendment.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am rather shocked at this amendment by 
my friend--and he is my friend. If I stood here and said: I don't like 
the laws in Lexington, KY, and I think that Big Brother ought to decide 
we should repeal their laws because I don't like it--that is 
ridiculous. The fact is, I am shocked that a Libertarian would stand 
here and offer this.
  I thought that Libertarians believe in freedom of localities over Big 
Government. So why would you wipe out duly enacted local laws? DC has 
its own unique needs. We know how many diplomats come here. We know the 
rest. It is quite different. We are a definite target, but the fact is, 
I urge my colleagues to stand and be counted here on behalf of local 
control.
  I started off as a county supervisor. I didn't want other entities 
telling me what to do. I think we ought to vote no on this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to Paul 
amendment No. 2915.
  Mr. PAUL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 325 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

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

                                NAYS--45

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Sanders
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.

[[Page 19470]]

  The Senator from Wyoming.


                Amendment No. 2916 to Amendment No. 2874

       (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)
  

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2916.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Enzi], for Mr. McConnell, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2916 to amendment No. 2874.

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, over the last several years our country 
has taken some important steps forward when it comes to health care. 
More than 16 million people have gained the peace of mind and security 
that comes with having health care coverage. Tens of millions of people 
with preexisting conditions no longer have to worry about insurance 
companies turning them away. Young adults in our country are able to 
stay covered under their parents' insurance as they start out in life. 
And there is so much more. But, as I have said many times, the work did 
not end when the Affordable Care Act passed--far from it. I am ready to 
continue working with anyone who has good ideas about how to continue 
making health care more affordable, expand coverage, and improve 
quality of care.
  Unfortunately, with this latest tired political effort to dismantle 
critical health care reforms, my Republican colleagues are once again 
making it clear that they want to take our health care system back to 
the bad old days. This is a major substitute amendment that my 
Republican colleagues just offered. It is yet another effort to pander 
to the extreme political base rather than working with us to strengthen 
health care for our families.
  Even the Parliamentarian agreed with us today that repealing these 
important premium stabilization programs does not have a sufficient 
budget impact and is subject to the Byrd rule.
  So I am raising a point of order today to strike section 105(b) from 
the amendment, which repeals the risk corridor program. It is a vital 
program to make sure premiums are affordable and stable for our working 
families. Repealing it would result in increased premiums, more 
uninsured, and less competition in the market.
  This amendment represents a step forward for our health care system, 
not backward. I hope Republicans will drop the politics and join us in 
supporting it.
  Mr. President, I raise a point of order that section 105(b) of the 
pending amendment violates section 313(b)(1)(D) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, ``premium stabilization'' is a fancy term 
for bailout. What this basically seeks to strike out is a provision 
that takes out the money for a bailout fund, for taxpayer money that 
would be used to bail out insurance companies that participate in 
ObamaCare. Why should the American taxpayer have to bail out private 
insurance companies that are losing money on ObamaCare?
  Last year, because we passed this provision, we saved the American 
taxpayers $2.5 billion. But now, because these companies have lobbyists 
who come up here and lobby to get their money, we are supposed to leave 
in this fund to bail out private insurance companies. This is 
outrageous.
  If you want to be involved in the exchanges--and of course I want us 
to repeal the whole lot, but if you want to be involved in these 
exchanges and you lose money, the American taxpayer should not have to 
bail you out to the tune of over $2 billion, and that is what they are 
asking for.
  Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, 
I move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable 
budget resolutions for purposes of amendment No. 2916, and I ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 52, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 326 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

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

                                NAYS--47

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

      
     Sanders
      
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 52, the nays are 
47.
  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 section 105(b) is stricken.
  The Democratic leader.


                Amendment No. 2917 to Amendment No. 2916

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask the clerk to report amendment No. 
2917.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2917 to amendment No. 2916.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To strike the reinstatement of the tax on employee health 
              insurance premiums and health plan benefits)

       In section 209, strike subsection (c).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. There is no shortage of contradictions today from my 
Republican friends. The first amendment was called, ``If you like what 
you have, you can keep it.'' A couple of hours later, the same 
Republicans came back and voted to strip the health care for 22 million 
Americans.
  In one of the few bipartisan moments today, 90 Senators voted to 
remove the provision that would restart the Cadillac tax in 2025. Yet 
minutes later, the Republican leader offered the pending substitute 
amendment to put that provision back in.
  Do they really believe those who oppose the Cadillac tax will not 
recognize that they voted with them and then immediately reversed 
themselves and voted against them? I am offering them a chance to 
correct the record.
  My amendment will again remove the provision that restarts the 
Cadillac tax in 2025. I urge all Senators, particularly the 90 who just 
voted yes, to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I appreciate the senior Senator from Nevada 
protecting the bipartisan amendment that was put forward by the junior 
Senator from Nevada to make sure that stays in the bill. I suggest that 
we have a voice vote.

[[Page 19471]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2917) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.


                Amendment No. 2919 to Amendment No. 2916

 (Purpose: To ensure that individuals can keep their health insurance 
                               coverage)

  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2919.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Ms. Baldwin] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2919 to amendment No. 2916.

  Ms. BALDWIN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of my 
amendment to allow families in Wisconsin and across the country to keep 
their high-quality affordable health insurance under the Affordable 
Care Act.
  My Republican friends want to repeal the Affordable Care Act and turn 
back the clock to the days when only the healthy and wealthy could 
afford the luxury of quality health insurance. The plan before us would 
strip millions of Americans of their premium tax credits and take away 
new Medicaid coverage for thousands of people across this country.
  My amendment is simple. It would prevent Republicans from taking away 
these tax credits and Medicaid for millions of low-income Americans. 
Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, over 183,000 Wisconsinites--hard-
working Wisconsinites--have obtained quality, affordable private health 
insurance coverage through the marketplace. Almost 90 percent of these 
Wisconsinites are receiving support to make their coverage more 
affordable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. BALDWIN. I ask unanimous consent for 10 more seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Americans deserve to know their coverage will be there 
when they need it the most. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment because in the United States of America, health care should 
be a right guaranteed to all, not a privilege reserved for the few.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment. This amendment would exempt individuals eligible for 
advanced premium tax credits from the larger tax credit repeal in the 
bill. As a matter of policy and fairness, I do not believe that just 
because an individual is eligible for an advanceable tax credit, they 
should be exempt from the larger repeal.
  I also object to the repeated attempt to pay for this amendment by 
increasing taxes on hard-working Americans. I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this message.
  The pending amendment No. 2919 would cause the underlying legislation 
to exceed the authorizing committee's 302(a) allocation of new budget 
authority or outlays. Therefore, I raise a point of order against this 
amendment pursuant to section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive all applicable 
sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 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. 327 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

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

                                NAYS--54

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Sanders
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 45, 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 the amendment falls.
  The Senator from Connecticut.


                Amendment No. 2918 to Amendment No. 2916

(Purpose: To protect victims of violence or disease, veterans, workers 
    who have lost their health insurance and their jobs, and other 
  vulnerable populations from the repeal of the advanced premium tax 
                                credit)

  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2918.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Murphy] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2918 to amendment No. 2916.

  Mr. MURPHY. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, when President Clinton proposed his health 
care bill in 1993, Republicans were so upset that they came up with a 
radical idea. This radical idea was to give tax credits to poor people 
to buy private insurance, to set up an insurance exchange where they 
could do that, to ban preexisting conditions, and to include an 
individual mandate--in short, the Affordable Care Act, built by 
Republicans, many of them still in this Chamber today.
  At the heart of that proposal was the idea that people should get a 
tax cut in order to be able to buy private insurance. At the heart of 
the underlying Republican amendment is a gutting of that ability of 
individuals to go out and buy private insurance for themselves.
  This amendment is pretty simple. It says that at the very least we 
can come together on the idea that we should preserve those tax credits 
for the most vulnerable--for pregnant women, for victims of domestic 
violence, for people suffering from heart disease, cancer, and 
Alzheimer's. At the very least, we can come together and decide to 
protect those tax credits--a Republican idea at the genesis for those 
vulnerable individuals.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment.
  Under ObamaCare, health insurance plans are decreasing, they are 
narrower, and they are giving sick individuals fewer choices and fewer 
options over their health care.
  Repealing ObamaCare is the first step in moving toward health care 
that is better for all Americans, including those who Senators Murphy 
and Stabenow intend to help.

[[Page 19472]]

  This amendment also again proposes the Buffett tax, taxing foreign 
inversion corporations as domestic, and expanding limitations on 
executive compensation deductibility.
  I believe the problem with Washington's finances is that our 
government spends too much and lives outside its means. I am 
continually working to put our country's finances on a sustainable path 
so that more Americans can keep more of their hard-earned money. We 
don't need higher taxes.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the upcoming motion to waive.
  Mr. President, the pending amendment No. 2918 would cause the 
underlying legislation to exceed the authorizing committee's 302(a) 
allocation of new budget authority or outlays. Therefore, I raise a 
point of order against this amendment pursuant to section 302(f) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive all applicable 
sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 46, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 328 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

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

                                NAYS--53

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Sanders
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are 
53.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.


                     Amendment No. 2916, as Amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on amendment No. 2916, as 
amended, offered by the majority leader.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we are about to have a voice vote on the 
substitute amendment, and I would not object to a voice vote, since I 
know we have all been here a long time, but I would just like to point 
out to everyone that the substitute amendment is a major bill that has 
just been introduced that we are now voting on. I assume everyone has 
read every word of it.
  We have been debating 20 hours and just got a major amendment a few 
hours ago that doubles down on all of the deep and harmful bill that is 
in front of us, and it is really objectionable to those on our side 
that after 20 hours of debate on a number of amendments we get a major 
substitute amendment that we are voting on.
  I would not object to it being a voice vote, but I urge my colleagues 
to vote no.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield back the time on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2916, as amended.
  The amendment (No. 2916), as amended, was agreed to.


                 Vote on Amendment No. 2874, as Amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on amendment No. 2874, as 
amended, offered by the majority leader.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield back our time.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yeld back all time on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2874, as amended.
  The amendment (No. 2874), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, for years the American people have been 
calling on Washington to build a bridge away from ObamaCare. For years 
Democrats prevented the Senate from passing legislation to do just 
that, but in just a moment that will change.
  It will be a victory for the middle-class families who have endured 
this law's pain far too long on their medical choices, on the 
affordability of their care, on the availability of their doctors and 
hospitals, and on the insurance they liked and wanted to keep. A new 
Senate that is back on the side of the American people will vote to 
move beyond all the broken promises, all the higher costs, and all the 
failures. We will vote to build a bridge away from ObamaCare and toward 
better care. We will vote for a new beginning.
  We hope the House will again do the same, and then President Obama 
will have a choice. He can defend the status quo that has failed the 
middle class by vetoing the bill or he can work toward a new beginning 
and better care by signing it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as I have said before, I am very proud of 
the progress we have made over the last few years toward a health care 
system that actually works for our families and puts their needs first.
  Today more than 16 million people have gained the peace of mind and 
security that comes with health care coverage. Tens of millions of 
people with preexisting conditions no longer have to worry about 
insurance companies turning them away, and young adults in this country 
are able to stay covered as they start out their lives, but the work 
didn't end when the Affordable Care Act was passed--far from it.
  So I am ready, and I know our colleagues on this side of the aisle 
are also, to work with anyone who has good ideas about how we continue 
making health care more affordable, expanding coverage, and improving 
the quality of care.
  The legislation we have now spent the last few days debating, which 
has no chance for becoming law, will do the exact opposite. This will 
undo the progress we have made. It is not what our families and 
communities want.
  I hope that once this partisan bill reaches the dead-end it has 
always been headed for, Republicans will finally drop the politics and 
work with us to deliver results for the families and communities we 
serve.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having read the third time, the 
question is, shall the bill pass?
  Mr. BARRASSO. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.

[[Page 19473]]


  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 329 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

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

                                NAYS--47

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Sanders
       
  The bill (H.R. 3762), as amended, was passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________