[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3922-3951]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2016

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the concurrent 
resolution.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

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


                   Recognition Of The Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time used 
for my opening statement not count against the budget resolution time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Affordable Care Act

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, as the Republican leader mentioned, it is 
hard to believe that 5 years have gone by since

[[Page 3923]]

we passed the Affordable Care Act--but it is true. It has been 5 years. 
We recall back to that cold winter day when we were able finally to get 
it done.
  But to me it doesn't seem that long ago. The memories of what took 
place to get where we did to pass that are very fresh in my mind. It 
wasn't an easy feat. Presidents going back to Truman and Eisenhower had 
tried to pass legislation dealing with health care, and they were all 
unable to do it. So it was really a great accomplishment that Congress 
could pass this legislation.
  It wouldn't be a stretch to say that President Obama risked his 
Presidency by pushing for health care reform. It was really a defining 
moment for many people.
  Republican opposition at the time was overwhelming. No matter what we 
as Democrats did or tried to do, there was nothing we could do to get 
Republicans to join us in giving health care to the American people, 
even though the original health care bill we passed was patterned after 
Republican proposals. So we worked hard, and we got it done. We pled 
for help, and we got none. Republicans simply were not interested in 
working with us to fix our Nation's health care system.
  Outside the Capitol, a sophisticated and dishonest public relations 
campaign costing huge amounts of money was being waged against 
ObamaCare by political operatives, lobbyists, insurance companies, and 
many others. We pressed on, and we did the very best we could, and it 
was pretty good. Was it perfect? Of course not. No legislation is. But 
what we eventually passed was and still is good for America.
  I was very surprised to hear my friend, the senior Senator from 
Kentucky, talk about a woman from Kentucky. That is very unusual, since 
400,000 people in Kentucky today have insurance because of ObamaCare 
that they didn't have before.
  Five years later, I am very proud of the work we did. I am just as 
proud today as I was when President Obama signed the Affordable Care 
Act into law. ObamaCare is reducing costs, expanding access, and 
protecting individuals with preexisting disabilities.
  Look at just a few of the things it has done.
  Some 16.4 million Americans now have quality health care coverage--
16.4 million.
  The United States has seen the largest decline in the uninsured 
rate--probably ever, but we will use just for purposes of 
illustration--in decades.
  In the last 18 months, the uninsured rate for nonelderly adults has 
fallen by 35 percent. That is stunning.
  Health care costs have grown at their slowest level in some 50 years.
  Now listen to this. Patient safety initiatives are keeping Americans 
safe. Since we passed this legislation, the number of preventable 
deaths at hospitals and care centers has dropped by 50,000 people. That 
is 50,000 people who are alive today who wouldn't have been had it not 
been for ObamaCare. That is just one aspect of the people who are alive 
today because of ObamaCare who would not have been otherwise.
  But for all of the incredible national statistics that are available, 
the best evidence that the Affordable Care Act is working can be found 
in our homes, our neighborhoods, and our communities.
  This year in Nevada, ObamaCare is making a real difference in the 
lives of about 73,000 people who signed up for coverage through the 
health care insurance marketplace. Frankly, Nevada got off to a really 
slow start because they had a contract in the State with Xerox and they 
did such an awful job. The Republican Governor of the State of Nevada--
I have applauded him in the past and I will do it again--was very 
courageous. He stepped forward and has made a huge difference in 
Nevada. Not only are Nevadans getting covered, but they are getting tax 
breaks, also. Some 65,000 Nevadans who selected a plan on the 
marketplace qualified for an average tax credit of $242 per month. No 
matter what standard we use, that is real money in the pockets of 
Nevadans who are still recovering from the economic downturn because of 
what happened on Wall Street. There are stories just like this all 
across America.
  After 5 years, it is as clear as ever that the Affordable Care Act is 
working. Americans are benefiting from increased health coverage, lower 
costs, and improved efficiency.
  Again, 16.4 million Americans have quality health coverage. Since 
2013, the United States has seen the largest decline in the uninsured 
rate in decades. In the last 18 months, the uninsured rate for 
nonelderly adults has fallen by 35 percent. Health care costs have 
grown at their slowest rate in 50 years. Patient safety initiatives are 
keeping Americans safe. Since 2011, the number of preventable deaths at 
hospitals and care centers has dropped by 50,000.
  The ranking member of the Budget Committee is on the floor today. One 
of the great things we do not talk much about in the Affordable Care 
Act is community health centers. The good man from Vermont, the junior 
Senator from Vermont, came to me and talked to me about community 
health centers. As a result of his advocacy, we put lots of money--
about $11 billion--in the Affordable Care Act for community health 
centers. It has changed the health care delivery system in America 
significantly. We must continue that program.
  The Affordable Care Act, for all the reasons we have mentioned, is 
something that is really important. It is important that everyone 
understand how absolutely fantastic it was for the people of this 
country. After 5 years, it is clear it is working. Americans are 
benefitting from increased coverage, lower costs, and improved 
efficiency.
  I invite my Republican colleagues to accept that ObamaCare is the law 
of the land. Put aside the unrealistic notions of repealing a law of 
which 16.4 million people now have health care. Are we going to just 
drop them, because the Republican plans would just basically drop them 
all?
  Instead, Republicans should join with us to help even more Americans 
get the help they need. Perhaps, then, 5 years from now Democrats and 
Republicans can look back with pride, knowing that together we helped 
make a good law even better for all Americans.


                       Reservation Of Leader Time

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the leadership time 
is reserved.
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I will begin by propounding some unanimous 
consent requests. I think these have been agreed to on both sides.
  First, I ask unanimous consent that, for the duration of the Senate's 
consideration of S. Con. Res. 11, the majority and Democratic managers 
of the concurrent resolution, while seated or standing at the managers' 
desks, be permitted to deliver floor remarks, retrieve, review, and 
edit documents, and send email and other data communications from text 
displayed on wireless personal digital assistant devices and tablet 
devices. I further ask unanimous consent that the use of calculators be 
permitted on the floor during consideration of the budget resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENZI. For the information of Senators, this UC does not alter the 
existing traditions that prohibit the use of such devices in the 
Chamber by Senators in general, officers, and staff. It also does not 
allow the use of videos or pictures, the transmitting of sound, even 
through earpieces, for any purposes, the use of telephones or other 
devices for voice communications, any laptop computers, any detachable 
keyboards, the use of desktop computers, or any other larger devices.
  Further, I ask unanimous consent that the initial debate time on the 
budget resolution be allocated as follows: time until 1 p.m. equally 
divided between the managers or their designees; 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. under 
the control of the majority; 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. under the control of the 
minority; 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. under the control of the majority; 4 p.m. to 
5 p.m. under the control of the minority; 5 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. equally 
divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time spent 
in

[[Page 3924]]

quorum calls requested during the budget resolution be equally divided 
and come off the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, last week, the Senate Budget Committee took 
an important first step in helping to change the way we do business 
here in Washington--by reporting out a balanced budget.
  This week, we take the next step as the Senate begins debating how 
best to make the government live within its means and set spending 
limits for our Nation. But we are running out of time, and unless we do 
something soon, our Nation will be overspending nearly $1 trillion a 
year. Now, that is actually $1,000 billion a year. A trillion dollars 
makes it sound rather trivial. It is $1,000 billion a year of 
overspending.
  Hard-working taxpayers are paying attention. In fact, 24 States have 
already passed a constitutional balanced budget amendment, and there 
are 10 more that are working on it. If all of these States pass similar 
measures, we will have 34 States needed for a constitutional convention 
on a balanced budget and we will be forced to act as they desire. ``If 
it isn't all of you,'' they are saying, ``it will be all of us.''
  Well, we are elected to represent our constituents. In the face of 
such demands, we should act or someday it will be out of our hands.
  One of the best ways to balance our budget is to make our government 
more efficient, effective, and accountable. If Congress does its job, 
we can have some flexibility and eliminate what is not working, 
starting with the worst first. Then we can eliminate waste and 
streamline what is left.
  But to do this, first Congress must do something it has not done in 
the past 8 years; that is, scrutinize every dollar for which they have 
responsibility. Actually, with the billions of dollars we spend every 
single year, they will be lucky to scrutinize every million dollars.
  If government programs are not delivering results, they should be 
improved; and if they are not needed, they should be eliminated. It is 
time to prioritize and demand results from our government programs.
  Through the process of getting the budget together, I discovered that 
we had 260 programs that have not been authorized. What is an 
authorization? Well, the committees are the people who are kind of 
experts or at least have a very concentrated concern over that 
particular area. They pass the new programs--the details of the new 
programs: the amount that can be spent on those programs, the way we 
can measure whether they are getting things done.
  I discovered that 260 of those programs that we are still funding 
have expired. Their authorization ran out. One thing that is in those 
authorizations is some kind of a sunset date; and we have passed the 
sunset date on 260 programs. So what? We are only overspending, 
according to the authorization, $293 billion a year on expired 
programs.
  Yes, some of those programs are absolutely essential. What we need to 
do, though, is have those committees that have the expertise go back 
and review them and reauthorize them and set the new limits and the new 
matrix for what they are supposed to be doing so we can tell if they 
are doing their job. Mr. President, 260 programs--one of them expired 
in 1983; a whole bunch of them expired before this century. So we know 
this will be a challenge for every single Member of Congress. But I 
believe we are up to the task because the American people are counting 
on us.
  This week hard-working taxpayers will also get to see something they 
have been waiting to see; and that is an open and transparent 
legislative process that will see Members from both sides of the aisle 
offering, debating, and ultimately voting on amendments to this 
resolution.
  Senate Republicans will offer amendments that will enhance fiscal 
discipline, build a strong national defense, boost our economic growth, 
tackle ObamaCare, protect education, and help make our government more 
efficient, effective, and accountable to hard-working taxpayers.
  What this budget does do. We will also hear people say what this 
budget does and what it does not do. But here is what this budget does 
do: It balances the budget in 10 years with no tax hikes. It protects 
our most vulnerable citizens. It strengthens the national defense. It 
improves economic growth and opportunity for hard-working families. It 
slows the rate of spending growth.
  It preserves Social Security by reducing spending in other areas to 
fully offset Social Security's rising deficits and encourages our 
Nation's leaders to begin a bipartisan, bicameral discussion on how to 
protect and save Social Security and avoid the across-the-board Social 
Security benefit cuts that could occur under current law. It protects 
our seniors by safeguarding Medicare from insolvency and extending the 
life of the Medicare trust fund by 5 years. It ensures Medicare savings 
in the President's health care law are dedicated to Medicare, instead 
of seeing those changes go to other programs and more overspending.
  It continues funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program, 
CHIP, and creates a new program based on CHIP to serve low-income, 
working-age, able-bodied adults and children who are eligible for 
Medicaid. It increases State flexibility in designing benefits and 
administering Medicaid programs to ensure efficiency and reduce 
wasteful spending and provides stable and predictable funding so long-
term services and supports are sustainable both for the Federal 
Government and the States.
  So as we begin this debate this week, it is worth noting that the 
strong economic growth a balanced budget can provide will serve as the 
foundation for helping all Americans grow and prosper. A balanced 
budget allows Americans to spend more time working hard to grow their 
businesses or advance their jobs, instead of worrying about taxes and 
inefficient and ineffective regulations. Most importantly, it means 
every American who wants to find a good-paying job and a fulfilling 
career has the opportunity to do just that.
  There are problems, however, with the family budget. Family income is 
not growing as it should, and this has dire consequences for our 
future. If family income does not grow, it becomes very difficult for 
parents to pay for their children's education and for their own 
training needs. Likewise, slow family income growth means less money 
set aside for retirement, health care, a downpayment on a house, and 
money to get the next generation started.
  Because job growth has been so slow since the beginning of the 
recovery, it is not surprising that income growth has been slow too. A 
lot of people fail to note that when jobs and incomes slow down 
together, the real victims are your hopes, your dreams, and your 
aspirations. Moreover, these trends of slow growth in jobs and incomes 
are relatively related and recent.
  Hardly anyone listening to me today would be confused by the term 
``family income.'' It clearly means the cash that families receive from 
their jobs and their investments. It is the stuff that goes into a 
savings account, into a retirement plan, into education for the kids, 
into the household rainy day fund. You can count it, and it is 
tangible.
  One of the other things I discovered as I was going through this 
process is we have some things we call trust funds. I have discovered 
that you better not trust them. There is no cash in the trust funds. 
Normally that would be investments that can be withdrawn and the bills 
paid. I think if we really were doing a financial statement for the 
Federal Government, we would have to move those trust funds over to 
accounts payable because what is backing them is the full faith and 
credit of the Federal Government. I hope we can make it so that is full 
faith and credit. That is why we need to change some of the things we 
are doing right now.
  Last year, we spent $231 billion on interest. That is on an $18 
trillion debt. In the President's budget, that is proposed to go to 
$780 billion. That is more

[[Page 3925]]

than we are spending on defense, more than we are spending on 
education, more than we are spending on almost any other function the 
Federal Government does. If $230 billion is 1 percent, what happens if 
we go to the normal rate of 5 percent? Oh, goodness, we only get to 
make choices here on $1,100 billion. So virtually all the money we have 
would go to interest--no national defense, no education, no other 
function that the Federal Government is involved in.
  Our overspending is killing us. Yes, there are two ways you can 
reduce overspending. One is to cut spending; the other one is to raise 
taxes. We are already collecting more money than we ever have in the 
history of the United States. So how are we going to solve this problem 
of the interest itself from bankrupting us? This budget is designed to 
put us on a path to do that. It will not solve everything. We have only 
had about 8 weeks to do what has not been done in the budget for 6 
years. So I hope you will bear with us during the course of this 
process.
  I am an accountant. I am also chair of the Senate Budget Committee, 
and we have started the monumental task of confronting America's 
chronic overspending, tackling our Nation's surging debt, and balancing 
our Nation's budget.
  Incidentally, under the President's budget, the overspending this 
year is $468 billion. Remember when we used to make decisions on $1,100 
billion? If the Constitutional Convention that I talked about that the 
States are putting together were in place--there are 24 already; 
another 10 makes it mandatory--we would have to cut 50 percent. We are 
not able to do that. It was tough enough to balance the budget over a 
10-year period. That is a tremendous task we have ahead of us if we are 
going to take care of balancing our Nation's debt and bringing it down 
to where it is a manageable level, where we can afford the interest on 
it.
  Before coming to Congress, I ran a small business in Wyoming for many 
years. I served as a mayor in my hometown and then served in the 
legislature. One of the most important roles I had was to ensure that 
my budgets were balanced every year. In time, we were even able to 
build some rainy-day accounts in Wyoming. So far, there has never been 
a crisis so bad that it has rained. It is time to begin this 
responsible accounting in Washington because while we can lie about the 
numbers, the numbers never lie.
  The worst kept secret in America is that this administration is 
spending more than ever and taxing more than ever. The President's 
budget increases taxes dramatically and still doesn't get us to a 
balanced budget. In fact, that $468 billion in overspending this year--
in the 10th year, he projects $1 trillion, which is $1,000 billion 
overspent. It never goes down. It keeps going up. We have to reverse 
that trend.
  The Federal Government should spend your tax dollars wisely and 
responsibly and give you the freedom and control to pursue your future 
in the way you choose. Hard-working taxpayers deserve a government that 
is more efficient, more effective, and more accountable. That should be 
something on which both parties can agree because I never heard anybody 
say they wanted a more inefficient, ineffective, and unaccountable 
government.
  Runaway spending habits over the past 6 years have created a 
dangerously growing debt because the habit of spending now and paying 
later is deeply ingrained. Actually, under the President's budget, it 
isn't even paying later that is included. Federal deficits have hit 
record highs. We have overspent nearly $1 trillion a year--that is 
$1,000 billion. The more Washington spends, the more debt we owe and 
the more is added to what future generations would have to pay.
  Today, America's debt totals $18 trillion. In fact, every man, woman, 
and child now owes more than $56,000 on that debt. The number is 
expected to grow to more than $75,000 over the next decade unless we 
make important changes. Yes, that is every man, woman, and child. That 
means somebody born this morning owes $56,000 on that debt.
  Every dollar spent on interest on our debt is another dollar we won't 
be able to use for government services, for individuals in need, or 
another dollar that won't be available to taxpayers for their own 
needs.
  It is time to stop talking and start acting. Washington has to live 
within its means, just as hard-working families do every day. We have 
to deliver a more effective and accountable government to the American 
people that supports them when it must and gets out of the way when it 
should. We didn't get here overnight, and we won't be able to fix it 
overnight, but we can begin to solve this crisis if we act now.
  The Republicans put forward a responsible plan that balances the 
budget in 10 years with no tax hikes. It protects our most vulnerable 
citizens, strengthens our national defense, and improves economic 
growth and opportunity for hard-working families. A balanced budget 
means real accountability in Washington and ensures that programs 
actually accomplish what they set out to deliver--which goes back to my 
statement about 260 programs that have expired that we are still 
funding to the tune of $293 billion. A balanced budget supports 
economic growth for hard-working families and creates real opportunity 
for all Americans to grow and prosper. A balanced budget allows 
Americans to spend more time working hard to grow their businesses or 
to advance their jobs instead of worrying about taxes and inefficient, 
ineffective regulations that drive down their opportunities. It also 
means our job creators can find new opportunities to expand our 
economy. Most importantly, it means every American who wants to have a 
good-paying job and a fulfilling career has the opportunity to do that. 
That is what a balanced budget means for our Nation, and it is what the 
American people deserve.
  Congress is under new management, and by working together to find 
shared ground with commonsense solutions, we can deliver real results 
and have real progress.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Thank you, Madam President. Let me begin by commenting 
on a few of the thoughts raised by my good friend Senator Enzi.
  Senator Enzi says the economy today is not where it should be, and he 
is right. I don't think anybody thinks the economy is where it should 
be in terms of low unemployment and high wages--no debate about that. 
But I ask the American people to think back 6\1/2\ years ago, at the 
end of President Bush's term, to what the economy was like. At that 
point, we were not gaining the 200,000 jobs a month we are gaining now; 
we were losing 800,000 jobs a month. At that point, the deficit was not 
at $480 billion, where it is today; it was at $1.4 trillion. At that 
point, the stock market was not soaring, as it is today; the American 
and world financial system was on the verge of collapse. So let's begin 
by putting issues into perspective.
  No, nobody I know thinks we are where we should be economically in 
America today, but anybody who does not understand that despite 
enormous Republican obstructionism, we have made significant gains over 
the last 6\1/2\ years would, I believe, be very mistaken.
  As we all know, the Federal budget we are working on now is not an 
appropriations bill. It does not provide explicit funding for this or 
that agency. What it does do is lay the foundation for that process, 
the total amount of money the appropriations committees have to spend. 
In other words, this budget is more than just a very long list of 
numbers. The Federal budget is about our national priorities and our 
values. It is about who we are as a nation and what we stand for. It is 
about how we analyze and assess the problems we face and how we go 
forward in resolving those problems. That is the task the Senate is now 
about to undertake, and it is a very serious responsibility.
  Let's be very clear. No family, no business, no local or State 
government can responsibly write a budget without

[[Page 3926]]

first understanding the problems and the challenges it faces. That is 
even more true when we deal with a Federal budget of some $4 trillion.
  As I examine the budgets brought forth by the Republicans in the 
House and here in the Senate, this is how I see their analysis of the 
problems facing our country. At a time of massive wealth and income 
inequality, perhaps the most important issue facing this country--a 
huge transfer of wealth from the middle class to the top one-tenth of 1 
percent. My Republican colleagues apparently believe the richest people 
in America need to be made even richer.
  It is apparently not good enough for my Republican colleagues that 99 
percent of all new income today is going to the top 1 percent--not good 
enough.
  It is apparently not good enough that the top one-tenth of 1 percent 
today own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. Clearly, in 
the eyes of my Republican colleagues, the wealthy and the powerful and 
the big campaign contributors need even more help. Not only should they 
not be asked to pay more in taxes, not only should we not eliminate 
huge loopholes that benefit the wealthy and large corporations, some of 
my Republican friends believe we should protect these loopholes, not 
change them at all or maybe even make them wider.
  It is apparently not good enough that corporate America is enjoying 
record-breaking profits and that the CEOs of large corporations earn 
some 290 times what their average employees make--290 times more.
  It is apparently not good enough that since 1985, the top one-tenth 
of 1 percent has seen a more than $8 trillion increase in its wealth 
than it would have if wealth and equality had remained the same as it 
was in 1985--an $8 trillion dollar increase in wealth going to the top 
one-tenth of 1 percent. But apparently my Republican colleagues not 
only do not talk about this issue, they will do nothing to address the 
massive wealth inequality this country faces.
  It is apparently not good enough for my Republican colleagues that 
the wealthiest 14 people in this country--14 people--have seen their 
wealth go up by more than $157 billion over the past 2 years alone. 
Fourteen people saw an increase in their wealth of $157 billion, and 
the Republican budget talks about cutting food stamps and education and 
nutrition, because we are presumably a poor nation. Well, we are not a 
poor nation. We just have massive wealth and income inequality, so that 
the vast majority of people are becoming poorer but the people on top 
are predominantly wealthy. That is the reality we must address.
  As manifested in the House and Senate budgets, my Republican 
colleagues are ignoring a very significant reality, and that is that 
millions of middle-class and working families are people who are often 
working longer hours for lower wages and have seen significant declines 
in their standard of living over the past 40 years. My Republican 
colleagues say those people who are struggling, those people who are 
trying to feed their families, those people who are trying to send 
their kids to college--those are not the people we should be helping; 
rather, we have to worry about the top 1 percent.
  At a time when over 45 million Americans are living in poverty, which 
is more than at almost any time in the modern history of our country--
and many of these people are working people, people who are working 40 
or 50 hours a week at substandard wages--my Republican colleagues think 
we should increase poverty by ending the Affordable Care Act, by 
slashing Medicaid, and by cutting food stamps and the earned-income tax 
credit.
  At a time when almost 20 percent of our kids live in poverty--the 
highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world--my 
Republican colleagues think that maybe we should even raise that 
poverty rate a little bit among our children by cutting childcare, by 
cutting Head Start, by cutting the refundable child tax credit, and 
maybe let's even go after nutrition programs for hungry children.
  To summarize, the rich get much richer and the Republicans think they 
need more help. The middle-class and working families of this country 
become poorer and the Republicans think we need to cut programs they 
desperately need. Frankly, those may be the priorities of some of my 
Republican colleagues, but I do not believe those are the priorities of 
the American people.
  Today, the United States safely remains the only major country on 
Earth that does not guarantee health care to all people as a right. 
Today, despite the modest gains in the Affordable Care Act, we still 
have about 40 million Americans who lack health insurance and millions 
more who are underinsured.
  What is the Republican response to the health care crisis? They want 
to abolish--do away with completely--the Affordable Care Act and take 
away the health insurance that 16 million Americans have gained through 
that program.
  Here we have 40 million people who have no health insurance and the 
Republican response is: Well, let's make it 56 million people. And if 
you add the massive cuts they proposed to Medicaid and the Children's 
Health Insurance Program, even millions more would lose their health 
insurance.
  Does anybody, for 1 second, think this vaguely makes any sense in the 
real world? People are struggling to try to find health insurance and 
the response is: Oh, let's cut 16 million people off of the Affordable 
Care Act and millions more off of Medicaid.
  While the Senate budget resolution does not end Medicare as we know 
it, unlike the House budget last year, it does make significant cuts. 
Further, when you make massive cuts to Medicaid, it is not only low-
income people who suffer, you are also cutting the nursing home care 
for seniors. These are elderly people--80, 90 years of age--in a 
nursing home, and one might argue these people are the most vulnerable 
people in this country, the most helpless people, fragile people, and 
we are going to cut programs for them.
  I have talked a little bit about the devastating impact the House and 
Senate Republican budgets would have on the American people, but I 
think it is equally important, when we look at a budget, to talk about 
not only what a budget does but talk about what a budget does not do, 
the serious problems it does not address.
  Poll after poll tells us the American people, when asked what their 
major concerns are, almost always respond: It is jobs, wages, and the 
economy. That is, generally speaking, what Democrats, Republicans, and 
Independents respond. It is the economy, jobs, and wages.
  Despite a significant improvement in the economy over the last 6 
years, real employment today is not 5.5 percent, it is 11 percent, 
counting those people who have given up looking for work and those 
people who are working part time. Youth employment, an issue we almost 
never discuss, is at 17 percent, and African-American youth employment 
is much higher than that.
  What the American people want--and what the Republican budget 
completely ignores--is the need to create millions of decent-paying 
jobs. I think if you go to Maine, to Vermont, to Wyoming, to California 
and ask people what they want, they would say: We need more jobs, and 
those jobs should be paying us a living wage.
  In my view--and in the view of many economists--if we are serious 
about creating jobs in this country, the fastest way to do it is to 
rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, our roads, bridges, water 
systems, wastewater plants, airports, rail, dams, levees, broadband in 
rural areas.
  According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, we need to 
invest over $3 trillion by the year 2020 just to get our Nation's 
infrastructure in good repair. When we make a significant investment in 
an infrastructure, we create millions of decent-paying jobs, which is 
exactly what we should be doing and what our side of the aisle will 
fight for, but it is an issue virtually ignored by the Republican 
majority. Crumbling infrastructure, need to create jobs--they don't 
talk about it.

[[Page 3927]]

  At a time when millions of Americans are working for starvation wages 
and when the Federal minimum wage is at an abysmal $7.25 an hour, we 
need a budget that substantially increases wages for low-income and 
middle-income workers. In the year 2015, no one who works in this 
country for 40 hours a week should be living in poverty. I would hope 
that is a tenet all of us can agree on. No one should be making the 
totally inadequate Federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.
  Raising the minimum wage to at least $10.10 an hour--I personally 
would go higher than that--would not only be good for low-wage workers, 
it would reduce spending on Medicaid, public housing, food stamps, and 
other Federal programs by some $7 billion a year.
  Sadly, when I offered an amendment in committee that called for a 
substantial increase in the minimum wage, not one of my Republican 
colleagues voted for it.
  Well, we are going to give them an opportunity to rethink the error 
of their ways. We are going to bring an amendment onto the floor to do 
exactly what the American people want; that is, significantly increase 
the minimum wage in this country, so no one who works 40 hours a week 
lives in poverty.
  We also need pay equity in this country so women do not make 78 cents 
on the dollar compared to what a man makes for doing the same work. 
Further, we need to address the overtime scandal in this country in 
which many of our people are working 50 or 60 hours a week but fail to 
get time and a half for their efforts.
  I haven't heard--I sat through all of the committee meetings, Budget 
Committee meetings, I was at the markup on Thursday--I didn't hear one 
Republican word about the need for pay equity for women workers, about 
the need to address the overtime scandal, and about the need to address 
the minimum wage. These are the issues the American people want 
addressed, but look high and low in that long Republican budget, you 
will not find one word addressing these issues.
  I can say in Vermont, and I suspect every State in this country, 
young people and their families are enormously frustrated by the high 
cost of college education and the horrendously oppressive student debt 
that many of them leave school with. In fact, student debt today at 
$1.2 trillion is the second-largest category of debt in this country, 
more than credit card debt and auto loan debt.
  Does the Republican budget do anything to lower interest rates on 
student debt? No. In fact, their budget would make a bad situation even 
worse by eliminating subsidized student loans and increasing the cost 
of a college education by about $3,000 for some of the lowest income 
students in America.
  Does the Republican budget support or comment on President Obama's 
initiative to make 2 years of community college free or do they provide 
any other initiative to make college affordable? Sadly, they don't. But 
what they do is cut $90 billion in Pell grants over a 10-year period, 
which would make college even more expensive for about 8 million low-
income college students.
  My Republican colleagues say they are concerned about the deficit--
which, by the way, has been reduced by more than two-thirds since 
President Obama has been in office, and we should be clear this side of 
the aisle is concerned about the deficit.
  My Republican colleagues are concerned about an $18 trillion national 
debt, which has skyrocketed in recent years. One of the reasons it has 
skyrocketed is that we went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the 
experts tell us that by the time we take care of the last veteran, 
those wars may cost over $5 trillion, and my deficit hawk friends on 
the Republican side, how did they pay for those wars? What taxes did 
they raise? What programs did they cut? They didn't. They put it on the 
credit card. That is how they paid for it.
  What concerns me very much is that, unfortunately, two wars unpaid 
for is not enough for my Republican colleagues. In the committee markup 
they put another $38 billion into defense spending on the credit card--
off-budget.
  So I think we should ask ourselves how does it happen that the move 
toward their balanced budget approach--they want to cut nutrition, 
education, health care, virtually every program that working families 
need--but when it comes to defense spending, another $38 billion. That 
is not chump change, even in Washington. That is off-budget--no 
problem, just add it to the deficit.
  When we talk about sensible ways of addressing our deficit or 
sensible ways of addressing our national debt, we cannot ignore the 
reality that major corporation after major corporation, in a given 
year, pays what in taxes--20 percent, 5 percent, 10 percent, zero 
percent. Profitable corporations such as General Electric, Verizon, 
Boeing, and many others have not only paid nothing in Federal income 
taxes in some recent years, they actually get rebates from the IRS.
  Can we talk about that issue or is the only way toward a balanced 
budget to cut programs for the elderly, the children, and the sick and 
the poor?
  A report from the Congressional Research Service: Each and every year 
profitable corporations are avoiding about $100 billion in taxes by 
stashing their profits in the Cayman islands.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ENZI. If the Senator needs a few more minutes----
  Mr. SANDERS. I would be pleased to split the time.
  I thank my colleague. I will take a few more minutes, and if he has 
more, he could take the rest.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. SANDERS. The point I was making is if we are serious about 
reducing the deficit, it is inconceivable that one does not look at the 
fact that corporation after corporation is paying zero in Federal 
income taxes. It is inconceivable that we do not recognize that in 1952 
corporations contributed about 32 percent of all Federal tax revenue. 
Today, they contribute about 11 percent. It is inconceivable that we do 
not understand that according to the CRS, each and every year 
profitable corporations are avoiding $100 billion in taxes.
  How can we not look at that issue? How could your only approach be to 
make it harder for kids to go to college or for little children to be 
in the Head Start Program?
  I look forward to the debate we will be having over the next several 
days. I suspect there will be a lot of amendments being offered. I 
think it is fair to say, on this side of the aisle, what the amendments 
will be saying is that we need to create millions of jobs. We need to 
raise wages in America. We need a tax system that is fair and does not 
contain loopholes that allow the wealthy and large corporations to 
avoid paying their fair share of taxes.
  We need a budget that says women workers should earn the same as male 
workers. We need a budget that says we have to rebuild our crumbling 
infrastructure.
  I think there will be a lot of very serious debates. I think the 
differences between the two sides will become very apparent, and I hope 
the American people pay strong attention to this discussion.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. I thank the ranking member for his comments.
  Madam President, I appreciate the civility with which we went through 
the committee process and look forward to having that same civility on 
the floor.
  Yes, there are some very important things for us to talk about. I 
have to agree, we need to do some things. The areas that were mentioned 
were taxes, wages, health insurance, infrastructure, and student debt. 
We just have a little bit different direction on how to achieve those 
things, but I am hoping we can find the common ground on those.
  The budget itself didn't get into specificity on how to do these 
things because our Budget Committee--while we

[[Page 3928]]

have people who represent a lot of those different committees--don't 
have the range of expertise that the committees themselves do. So what 
we tried to do in the budget was set the parameters for them to work in 
and to find the solutions that would work best within those parameters.
  We are trying to get this budget done by April 15. That is actually a 
statutory deadline--it is seldom ever met--and I intend to meet that 
deadline. That is so the appropriators, the people doing the spending 
bills, can actually get started, so that for once maybe we can have all 
12 spending bills debated on the floor, unlimited amendments, so we can 
get as many of the 100 opinions that we have--it is 300 or 400 opinions 
actually--involved in the decisions on how to best to spend the money 
the United States spends.
  The Finance Committee that I am also on is actually dedicated to 
getting some tax reform done. I think they will do it in a bipartisan 
way. That should eliminate some of the loopholes that have been talked 
about and also clear up some of the misconceptions there are about some 
of the things.
  I will conclude by talking a little about deficit, because I keep 
hearing the other side say they have reduced the deficit in half. Yes, 
but the word ``deficit'' is so misleading. It is not the debt, it is 
the deficit. That is the amount of overspending in any given year. So 
they have reduced the amount of overspending by one-half, but it is 
still overspent by one-half. Every time it is overspent, that adds to 
the debt. That is how the $18 trillion gets to $25 trillion in the next 
10 years. We have to stop doing that. So I would appreciate it if they 
would use a different word. Somebody said it is the fiscal gap. Well, 
maybe ``fiscal gap'' is a better word, but it is overspending.
  Now overspending can be changed in two different ways: We can either 
increase taxes or we can reduce our spending on things or we can do a 
combination of those things. Until we start talking to each other, we 
won't be doing any combinations of anything, probably.
  So I am hoping we can have the civility we had in the committee here 
on the floor and come up with solutions for America and Americans and 
the hard-working taxpayers of this country, who are really interested 
in all of these topics and feel we ought to do something about it and 
that we shouldn't just be taking a lot of latitude and putting in 
details that maybe aren't there in the other's provisions. So I look 
forward to the debate.
  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. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               ObamaCare

  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, 5 years ago today, President Obama 
signed his health care bill into law. Since then Americans have watched 
their paychecks shrink because of the law. Hard-working American 
taxpayers have paid billions of dollars in higher taxes because of the 
law. They have had less health care choice because of the law.
  So what does the President say about all of this? What does the 
President say to the millions of Americans who have had to suffer--
suffer--through a long list of costly and appalling side effects of the 
President's health care law? Well, last week he gave a speech in 
Cleveland and he said, ``It's working even better than I expected.'' He 
repeated the same thing this weekend, saying, ``It's working even 
better than I expected.''
  Has the President not seen what has happened to workers' paychecks 
over the last 5 years? Maybe the President missed an article by the 
Associated Press last Wednesday. The headline was: ``Health care law 
paperwork costs small businesses thousands.'' The article said, 
``Complying with the health care law is costing small businesses 
thousands of dollars that they didn't have to spend before the new 
regulations went into effect.''
  The article gives the example of Mike Patton, who has a flooring 
company in the San Francisco Bay area. All of the extra ObamaCare 
paperwork is costing him about $25,000 a year. To pay for it, the 
article said, Mike had to ``cut back on workers' bonuses and raises.'' 
He told the Associated Press, ``They understand it didn't emanate from 
us . . . They're just disappointed that $25,000 could have gone into a 
bonus pool.''
  Mike Patton's employees will get less money in their paychecks 
because of all the complex and costly redtape of ObamaCare. Is that 
even better than the President expected?
  People are getting smaller paychecks and they are also paying higher 
taxes because of this health care law. According to the latest estimate 
by the Congressional Budget Office, ObamaCare will increase 
Washington's spending on health care by $1.7 trillion over the next 
decade. About half of that is for subsidies in the ObamaCare exchanges 
and about half is to pay for all of the people who have been dumped 
onto a broken Medicaid system. The $1.7 trillion has to come from 
somewhere, and a lot of it is coming from hard-working American 
taxpayers.
  ObamaCare included more than 20 tax increases on things such as 
medical devices, prescription drugs, and even on the very insurance 
policies that Washington Democrats said everyone has to buy. Why so 
many taxes? Why is ObamaCare so expensive? Well, an outrageous amount 
of the money has been wasted over the last 5 years.
  Just the other day there was another example that came out of 
Massachusetts. There was a Boston Herald article last Wednesday, March 
18. The headline was: ``Health Connector officials spent $170G on 
perks.'' The article talks about Federal taxpayer money--Federal 
taxpayer money--that was given to Massachusetts to set up the State's 
ObamaCare exchange. The article says:

       Massachusetts Health Connector officials behind the state's 
     failed health care website--

  Now, remember, the health care Web site in Massachusetts completely 
failed.

       Massachusetts Health Connector officials behind the state's 
     failed health care website have racked up more than $170,000 
     in taxpayer-funded expenses, including a Boston Harbor 
     summertime boat cruise, luxury hotel stays, ``appreciation'' 
     meals for staffers and contractors--and a $285 Obamacare cake 
     commemorating the launch of the Affordable Care Act. . . .

  According to the article, ``the Connector's staff and board members 
scored numerous perks even as they spent hundreds of millions [of 
dollars] to fix the state portal during its botched Obamacare 
rollout.''
  What does the State have to say about this--about the kind of waste 
and misuse of taxpayer money? Well, the article actually quotes a 
spokesman for the exchange saying ``we were happy to do it.'' Does 
President Obama think that kind of waste is even better than he 
expected?
  It seems as though the American people see headlines like this every 
day and every day they see more ways the President's health care law 
has failed us over the last 5 years.
  Let me cite one more example, and this one concerns one of the ways 
ObamaCare has meant less choice for Americans when it comes to their 
own health care. President Obama promised you could keep your doctor. 
Millions of Americans over the past 5 years have lost access to their 
doctor because insurance plans have had to limit the network of doctors 
those patients can see. That can generate and create real problems for 
people trying to use their coverage to actually get medical care.
  This is about a woman by the name of Pam Durocher from Roseville, CA. 
An article by Kaiser Health News on February 18 told her story. The 
headline was: ``Even Insured Consumers Get Hit With Unexpectedly Large 
Medical Bills.'' And she is insured. The article continued: ``After Pam 
Durocher was diagnosed with breast cancer, she searched her insurer's 
website for a participating surgeon to do the reconstructive surgery.'' 
The article said she did her homework, so ``she was stunned to get a 
$10,000 bill from the surgeon. `I panicked when I got the bill'''--no 
surprise that she panicked when she got

[[Page 3929]]

the bill--``said the 60-year-old retired civil servant. . . . ''
  It turns out the surgeon had two offices and only one of those was in 
the very narrow network of the insurance plan. The office Pam went to 
wasn't in the network so she got a bill for $10,000. According to this 
article: ``Consumer advocates say that the sheer scope of such problems 
undermine promises''--undermine promises--``made by proponents of the 
Affordable Care Act that the law would protect against medical 
bankruptcy.'' It says that, ``Advocates believe a growing number of 
consumers are vulnerable.''
  Let me repeat that: Advocates of the health care law, people who 
voted for it, believe a growing number--now with the fifth anniversary 
of the health care law--are vulnerable. And President Obama said that 
was exactly the type of situation his law was supposed to prevent. 
Instead, it is exactly the kind of situation his devastating health 
care law has created.
  The Obama administration is bragging--bragging--about the number of 
people covered by ObamaCare. Is this what those people have to look 
forward to? Does President Obama really think that making people such 
as Pam panic means his law is working even better than he expected? It 
may be better than he expected, but it is a lot worse than what the 
American people expected. It is also a lot worse than what they were 
promised.
  As a doctor who has practiced medicine for 25 years, I know Americans 
have always wanted affordable care instead of expensive Washington-
mandated coverage. The American people expected health care reform to 
give them the care they need, from a doctor they choose, at lower cost. 
Five years ago too many Americans were paying higher premiums. Here we 
are 5 years later and Americans are paying even higher premiums and 
finding it harder to see their doctor. This isn't what President Obama 
promised and it is not what the American people deserve.
  In the coming months the Supreme Court will rule on whether the 
President violated his own law with an unauthorized spending and taxing 
scheme. This will be a major blow to a law that has failed Americans 
for more than 5 years and will be an opportunity to finally focus on 
affordable health care. Republicans are committed to helping the 
millions of Americans who have been hurt by this law. We are working on 
a plan that will deliver freedom, flexibility, and choice to Americans.
  Five years later, the law has been bad for patients, it has been bad 
for providers, and it has been terrible for the American taxpayers. 
This anniversary today is not a cause for celebration. It is a call for 
action.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record the following articles from the Boston Herald, the Associated 
Press, and Kaiser Health News.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Boston Herald, March 18, 2015]

            Health Connector Officials Spent $170G on Perks

             (By Chris Cassidy, Erin Smith and Matt Stout)

       Massachusetts Health Connector officials behind the state's 
     failed health care website have racked up more than $170,000 
     in taxpayer-funded expenses, including a Boston Harbor 
     summertime boat cruise, luxury hotel stays, ``appreciation'' 
     meals for staffers and contractors--and a $285 Obamacare cake 
     commemorating the launch of the Affordable Care Act, a Herald 
     review has found.
       Under the Patrick administration, the Connector's staff and 
     board members scored numerous perks even as they spent 
     hundreds of millions to fix the state portal during its 
     botched Obamacare rollout. Among them:
       $553 for a harbor cruise for an employee celebration in 
     September 2013, part of a $1,495 total expense item that also 
     covered costs for Sam LaGrassa's sandwiches and Lizzy's Ice 
     Cream.
       A $236 one-night stay at the Palms Hotel in Miami, which 
     bills itself as a beachside oasis with ``spa-inspired'' 
     bathrooms, an on-site spa and ``impressive views of the 
     ocean,'' plus $944 in stays at Nine Zero and Millennium 
     Bostonian, and $352 at the Omni Parker House.
       A $285 Obamacare cake in October 2013, and thousands for 
     employee ``appreciation'' desserts and catered meals for 
     staffers and contractors, including a $236 ``cookie tray'' 
     from Metro Catering, $298 for Lizzy's Homemade Ice Cream, 
     $134 for pastries from Fratelli's Pastry Shop and an 
     unspecified amount from Dandy Donuts for call-center 
     employees in Illinois.
       About $20,400 in parking costs that officials say the 
     state's taxpayer-funded Medicaid program will ultimately 
     cover.
       All told, Connector officials ran up $171,030 in expenses 
     in the 19 months from July 2013 through January 2015, the 
     review found.
       Connector spokesman Jason Lefferts defended the expenses, 
     noting they also include trips to Maryland and Washington, 
     D.C., to meet with Obama administration officials at an 
     important time in the relaunch of the website.
       ``We found the right path and we got a website that 
     worked,'' said Lefferts. ``In terms of the food and the 
     appreciation, obviously not just for staff here, but for the 
     vendors that worked for us and the navigators that were 
     helpful to us. If we bought them a bagel or a sandwich in 
     appreciation, we were happy to do it.''
       From the start, the Connector's Obamacare portal was 
     plagued by embarrassing glitches that, among other things, 
     blocked people with hyphenated last names from signing up for 
     plans, and forced others to falsely claim to be prison 
     inmates or mental patients before they could finish their 
     applications. Others complained about frequent computer 
     crashes and long waits on the phone.
       Travel costs for board members to attend meetings also ran 
     high, the review found. Former board member Ian Duncan--a 
     University of California at Santa Barbara professor--was 
     reimbursed $16,584 for travel.
       Board member Lou Malzone, who lives on Cape Cod, expensed 
     $11,196 for travel and hotels. Malzone chalked up the costs 
     to times he stays overnight ahead of a board meeting, instead 
     of making the 75-mile, one-way trip to and from the Cape.
       ``You tell me if you can find (a hotel) for under $200 or 
     $300 a night in Boston,'' Malzone said.
       Other larger expense reports, he said--including at least 
     four that topped $1,000--are from times he was out of town on 
     business or vacation and flew back for a board meeting.
       ``I have a pretty good attendance record,'' he said, 
     estimating he's missed just four meetings over nine years. 
     ``If you're out of town and there's a business meeting, I go 
     back, rather than do conference calls.''
                                  ____


              [From the Associated Press, March 18, 2015]

       Health Care Law Paperwork Costs Small Businesses Thousands

                        (By Joyce M. Rosenberg)

       New York.--Complying with the health care law is costing 
     small businesses thousands of dollars that they didn't have 
     to spend before the new regulations went into effect.
       Brad Mete estimates his staffing company, Affinity 
     Resources, will spend $100,000 this year on record-keeping 
     and filing documents with the government. He's hired two 
     extra staffers and is spending more on services from its 
     human resources provider.
       The Affordable Care Act, which as of next Jan. 1 applies to 
     all companies with 50 or more workers, requires owners to 
     track staffers' hours, absences and how much they spend on 
     health insurance. Many small businesses don't have the human 
     resources departments or computer systems that large 
     companies have, making it harder to handle the paperwork. On 
     average, complying with the law costs small businesses more 
     than $15,000 a year, according to a survey released a year 
     ago by the National Small Business Association.
       ``It's a horrible hassle,'' says Mete, managing partner of 
     the Miami-based company.
       But there are some winners. Some companies are hiring 
     people to take on the extra work and human resources 
     providers and some software developers are experiencing a 
     bump in business.
       Companies must track workers' hours according to rules 
     created by the IRS to determine whether a business is 
     required to offer health insurance to workers averaging 30 
     hours a week, and their dependents. Companies may be 
     penalized if they're subject to the law and don't offer 
     insurance.
       Businesses must also track the months an employee is 
     covered by insurance, and the cost of premiums so the 
     government can decide if the coverage is affordable under the 
     law.
       Many companies have separate software for payroll, 
     attendance and benefits management and no easy way to combine 
     data from all of them, says John Haslinger, a vice president 
     at ADP Benefits Outsourcing Consulting. And early next year, 
     employers must complete IRS forms using information from 
     these different sources. The process is more complex for 
     businesses with operations in different states.
       Mike Patton's health insurance broker is handling the extra 
     administrative chores for his San Francisco Bay-area flooring 
     company DSB Plus, but he's paying for it through higher 
     premiums--about $25,000 a year.
       To pay for the extra services the business is getting from 
     his broker, Patton cut back on workers' bonuses and raises.
       ``They understand it didn't emanate from us,'' Patton says. 
     ``They're just disappointed

[[Page 3930]]

     that $25,000 could have gone into a bonus pool.''
       That kind of spending has led to a surge in business for 
     payroll providers, human resources consultants and health 
     insurance brokers that track hours and keep records for small 
     businesses, and even file documents with the government.
       Sales have more than doubled in the last year at human 
     resources provider Engage PEO. Many of its clients are small 
     companies.
       ``They want to comply with the law and don't want to be 
     subject to an unintended penalty,'' says Dorothy Miraglia 
     King, executive vice president of the St. Petersburg, 
     Florida-based company.
       Businessolver, a company whose primary business is creating 
     software to help companies administer benefits, also reports 
     an uptick in demand. In 2013, when clients started becoming 
     aware of the law's paperwork requirements, they asked for 
     software that could take care of all their needs, says Rae 
     Shanahan, a human resources executive at the West Des Moines, 
     Iowa, company.
       ``The traditional systems that people have can't handle 
     it,'' she says.
                                  ____


                [From Kaiser Health News, Feb. 18, 2015]

  Even Insured Consumers Get Hit With Unexpectedly Large Medical Bills

                           (By Julie Appleby)

       After Pam Durocher was diagnosed with breast cancer, she 
     searched her insurer's website for a participating surgeon to 
     do the reconstructive surgery.
       Having done her homework, she was stunned to get a $10,000 
     bill from the surgeon.
       ``I panicked when I got that bill,'' said the 60-year-old 
     retired civil servant who lives near Roseville, Calif.
       Like Durocher, many consumers who take pains to research 
     which doctors and hospitals participate in their plans can 
     still end up with huge bills.
       Sometimes, that's because they got incorrect or incomplete 
     information from their insurer or health-care provider. 
     Sometimes, it's because a physician has multiple offices, and 
     not all are in network, as in Durocher's case. Sometimes, 
     it's because a participating hospital relies on out-of-
     network doctors, including emergency room physicians, 
     anesthesiologists and radiologists.
       Consumer advocates say the sheer scope of such problems 
     undermine promises made by proponents of the Affordable Care 
     Act that the law would protect against medical bankruptcy.
       ``It's not fair and probably not legal that consumers be 
     left holding the bag when an out-of-network doctor treats 
     them,'' said Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and 
     Lee University. Jost said it's a different matter if a 
     consumer knowingly chooses an out-of-network doctor.
       Durocher learned only after getting her surgeon's bill that 
     just one of his two offices participated in her plan and she 
     had chosen the wrong one. She said the doctor's staff later 
     insisted that they had raised the issue during her initial 
     consultation, but she doesn't recall that, possibly because 
     she was distracted by her cancer diagnosis.
       Adding insult to injury, insurers are not required to count 
     out-of-network charges toward the federal health law's annual 
     limit on how much of their medical costs patients can be 
     asked to pay out of their own pockets.
       Efforts by doctors, hospitals and other health providers to 
     charge patients for bills not covered by their insurers are 
     called ``balance billing.'' The problem pre-dates the federal 
     health law and has long been among the top complaints filed 
     with state insurance regulators.
       Because the issue is complex and pits powerful rivals 
     against one another--among them, hospitals, doctors and 
     insurers--relatively few states have addressed it. What laws 
     do exist are generally limited to specific situations, such 
     as emergency room care, or certain types of insurance plans, 
     such as HMOs.
       The federal health law largely sidesteps the issue as well. 
     It says insurers must include coverage for emergency care and 
     not charge policyholders higher copayments for ER services at 
     non-network hospitals, because patients can't always choose 
     where they go. While the insurer will pay a portion of the 
     bill, in such cases, doctors or hospitals may still bill 
     patients for the difference between that payment and their 
     own charges.
       That means that in spite of having insurance, a consumer 
     involved in a car wreck and taken to a non-network hospital 
     might receive additional bills, not just from the hospital, 
     but from the radiologist who read his X-rays, the surgeon who 
     repaired his broken leg and the laboratory that processed his 
     blood tests.


                         Networks Get Narrower

       Advocates believe a growing number of consumers are 
     vulnerable to balance billing as insurance networks grow 
     smaller in the bid to hold down costs.
       For example, there were no in-network emergency room 
     physicians or anesthesiologists in some of the hospitals 
     participating in plans offered by three large insurers in 
     Texas in 2013 and 2014, according to a survey of state data 
     by the Center for Public Policy Priorities, a Texas advocacy 
     group.
       Smaller networks are also becoming more common in employer-
     based insurance: About 23 percent of job-based plans had so-
     called ``narrow networks'' in 2012, up from 15 percent in 
     2007, according to a May report from the Urban Institute and 
     Georgetown University Center on Health Insurance Reforms.
       To protect consumers, advocacy groups, including Consumers 
     Union and the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, 
     want regulators to strictly limit balance billing when an 
     insured person gets care in a medical facility that is part 
     of an insurer's network.
       ``Without protection from balance billing, the cost of out-
     of-network care can be overwhelming,'' wrote Consumers Union 
     in a recent letter to the National Association of Insurance 
     Commissioners (NAIC), which is updating a model law that 
     states could adopt to regulate insurance networks.
       NAIC'S current draft does not directly address the issue of 
     balance billing and consumer efforts have drawn sharp 
     opposition from insurers, hospitals and doctors.
       Some states have taken other steps to protect consumers:
       Earlier this month, California set out new rules requiring 
     some insurers to provide accurate lists of medical providers 
     in their networks.
       New Jersey specifies that insurers guarantee that certain 
     providers be available ``within 20 miles or 30 minutes 
     average driving time.''
       Colorado insurers must pay non-network medical providers 
     their full charges, not discounted network rates, for care at 
     in-network hospitals.
       In Maryland, insurers must pay for ``covered services,'' 
     which includes emergency care, but the state sets 
     standardized payment rates.
       Starting in April, New Yorkers won't face extra bills for 
     out-of-network emergency care, when an in-network provider is 
     unavailable or when they aren't told ahead of time that they 
     may be treated by a non-participating provider. Instead, the 
     bills must be settled in arbitration between the providers 
     and the insurance companies.


                            Cost Trade-Offs

       Insurers defend the move to smaller networks of doctors and 
     hospitals as a way to provide the low-cost plans that 
     consumers say they want. Since insurers can no longer reject 
     enrollees with health problems or charge them more, the plans 
     are using the tools left to them to reduce costs.
       If regulators required them to fully cover charges by out-
     of-network doctors, that could reduce ``incentives for 
     providers to participate in networks'' and make it harder to 
     have adequate networks, America's Health Insurance Plans, the 
     insurers' trade group, and the Blue Cross Blue Shield 
     Association wrote in a joint letter to the NAIC.
       It would also raise premiums.
       Instead, AHIP says, states could require out-of-network 
     doctors to accept a benchmark payment from insurers, perhaps 
     what Medicare pays, rather than balance billing patients.
       Physicians, meanwhile, blame insurers for inadequate 
     networks.
       ``It is the limited coverage, not the physician bill, which 
     is the cause of the unfairness,'' the Texas Medical 
     Association wrote to the NAIC.
       At the very least, doctors and hospitals say insurers need 
     to do a better job of educating policyholders that their 
     plans may not cover care provided by some doctors and 
     hospitals.
       ``There's no `free' anywhere,'' said Lee Spangler, vice 
     president of medical economics with the Texas Medical 
     Association. ``You either pay for the coverage through 
     premiums, or you pay for service when you receive it.''
       Doctors choose whether to balance bill, he added--and some 
     don't.
       But he noted that patients ``have received professional 
     services in the expectation that they will get alleviation of 
     what ailed them, and the physicians provided it in the 
     expectation they would be paid. There's no in between,'' 
     Spangler said.
       For patients like Durocher, who got billed even after doing 
     everything she was told, the only recourse is to negotiate 
     with the physician or hospital to ask them to lower or drop 
     the charges.
       ``Fortunately for me,'' Durocher said, ``this doctor was 
     very nice and wrote off almost $7,000 of the bill.''

  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, 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. HATCH. 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. HATCH. Madam President, today marks the fifth anniversary of the 
signing of the so-called Affordable Care Act. Of course, few people are 
actually celebrating.
  Five years--that is a long time, more than long enough for us to 
evaluate the

[[Page 3931]]

impact of the law to determine if it is working. On that question, I 
think the answer is clear: The President's health care law is not 
working--not even close.
  Most Americans recognize this. They have seen how the law has failed 
to deliver on the many promises that were made at the time it was 
passed, and they want a change. I will have more to say on the change 
in just a few minutes. For now, I would like to take some time to talk 
about the lessons we have learned over the last 5 years.
  If we think back to 2009 and early 2010, when ObamaCare was being 
debated in Congress, we will remember a number of promises that the law 
would actually reduce the cost of health care in this country. Those 
were big promises. After all, costs represent the biggest barrier to 
health care in the United States and are, by almost all accounts, the 
top concern for health care consumers. We simply cannot adequately 
reform health care without reducing costs, and on that count alone 
ObamaCare is a miserable failure.
  For example, under the law, we have seen premium hikes. Studies have 
shown the health care law increased costs in the individual insurance 
market by as much as 50 percent in 2014 alone. This year, we have 
already seen a 4-percent increase for benchmark plans in the health 
insurance exchanges. Moreover, a recent report by Avalere Health found 
premiums in the most popular exchange plans increased by an average of 
10 percent in 2015.
  In addition to these spikes, which some might try to write off as 
isolated, premiums have increased faster overall under ObamaCare. 
According to a recent report by the National Bureau of Economic 
Research, 2014 premiums in the nongroup health insurance market grew by 
24.4 percent, on average, compared to what they would have been had the 
law never been passed.
  Looking to the future, costs are projected to continue going up. 
According to the Congressional Budget Office, premiums will increase by 
about 6 percent per year over the next 10 years. This increase can be 
attributed to a number of factors, including high demand for expensive 
medical care, higher provider rates as enrollment increases, 
uncertainty created by haphazard regulatory changes under ObamaCare, 
and the failure of the plans to attract enough young and healthy 
consumers.
  Of course, none of these increased costs are surprising. Despite the 
promises made by the President and his allies in Congress that 
ObamaCare would actually reduce costs, numerous studies and projections 
indicated that costs would be on the rise after the law was 
implemented. Indeed, those of us who opposed the law have been noting 
this almost nonstop for the last 5 years.
  As we can see, the President's health care law is a failure on its 
own terms. The law is named the ``Affordable Care Act.'' The promise to 
reduce the cost of health care is right there in the name, and, by any 
measure, the law has failed to live up to this promise.
  Of course, the failure to bring down costs isn't the only problem we 
have seen with regard to ObamaCare. Another major problem is the lack 
of security and failed oversight of the online marketplace, which has 
put consumers' personal information at risk of fraud or theft.
  It started with a lack of preparation. Two government watchdogs--the 
GAO and HHS Office of Inspector General--found that healthcare.gov was 
given a green light to launch, even though it was not adequately 
secure. It continued with weak security.
  Shortly after the launch of the exchanges, GAO found security 
problems in State computer systems that link to the Federal network and 
warned ``increased and unnecessary risks remain of unauthorized access, 
disclosure, or modification of information collected and maintained by 
HealthCare.gov.''
  CMS did take action to lower those risks, but even with those changes 
in place, the HHS OIG--Office of Inspector General--remained concerned 
about security issues, including the use of encryption technology that 
did not meet government standards.
  I was one of the first Members of Congress to note these security 
problems, and I introduced legislation to address some of them. Sadly, 
with the Democrats in charge of the Senate, the legislation did not go 
anywhere, and the results were predictable.
  In late 2013 and early 2014, cyber
security experts warned the healthcare.gov Web site was vulnerable to 
hacking, and, sure enough, in July of last year, the site was hacked, 
resulting in the upload of malicious code.
  These security problems are a prime example of how careless and 
haphazard the Obama administration has been as it has tried to 
implement the Affordable Care Act. Sadly, there are even more examples, 
many of which directly impact the lives and livelihoods of the American 
people.
  As this tax session has commenced, we have seen how the health care 
law--and the administration's poor management of it--has resulted in 
frustration and delay for hard-working taxpayers. Let's talk about that 
frustration.
  According to H&R Block, in the first 6 weeks of this tax-filing 
season, 52 percent of customers who enrolled in insurance through the 
State or Federal exchanges had to repay a portion of the advanced 
premium tax credit they received under ObamaCare. That same report 
found that individuals, on average, are having to repay about $530, 
which is decreasing their tax refunds by an average of roughly 17 
percent.
  Now let's talk about delay.
  On February 20, 2015, the Obama administration announced that due to 
an error in the health care law, they sent out about 800,000 incorrect 
tax statements relating to form 1095-A, meaning that hundreds of 
thousands of Americans may be seeing delays in their tax refunds this 
year.
  These are just some of the problems hard-working taxpayers are facing 
as they try to deal with ObamaCare during this tax season.
  While the ramifications to taxpayers are significant, the overall 
impact on America's budget is even greater. The total overall cost of 
ObamaCare so far has numbered in the tens of billions of dollars, and 
we are barely through the first phases of implementation.
  In numerous areas, taxpayers have been left on the hook for funds 
that were doled out for ObamaCare to States, corporations, and 
contractors with little or no accountability. Unfortunately, a 
significant portion of that money resulted in no benefit whatsoever to 
the taxpayers.
  Last week, the Finance Committee held a hearing on the anniversary of 
ObamaCare, where I noted five specific misuses of taxpayer funds that 
have resulted from ObamaCare. In just these five areas, roughly $5.7 
billion went to projects that added absolutely no value. Those examples 
of wasteful spending bear repeating.
  No. 1, failed State exchanges. According to CRS--the bipartisan 
Congressional Research Service--$1.3 billion in taxpayer funds have 
been spent on State exchanges that failed and were never operational.
  No. 2, consumer-oriented and operated plans or co-ops. CMS has loaned 
$2.4 billion to 24 co-ops, one of which failed before it enrolled 
anyone. When all is said and done, nearly half of this money will be 
lost due to defaults or artificially low interest rates, and CMS has no 
plans to recoup any of these funds, meaning a total cost to taxpayers 
of around $1 billion.
  No. 3, healthcare.gov Web site. The failures of the Federal insurance 
marketplace are well documented. Despite fixes that eventually came to 
the Web site, the total cost of the failed enrollment system surpassed 
$2 billion.
  No. 4, Serco. This contractor was awarded $1.2 billion to manage 
paper applications during the first enrollment period of the health 
care law. Of course, very few of the applications received were on 
paper, and Serco employees had little to do. One former employee felt 
ashamed after leaving the company and reached out to the St. Louis 
Post-Dispatch, saying:

       I feel guilty for working there as long as I did. It was 
     like I was stealing money from people.

  No. 5, marketplace navigators. The administration has spent over $120 
million on the Navigator Program for the 2014 and 2015 open enrollment 
periods. With enrollment in the exchanges surpassing 11 million 
individuals, the efficacy of the Navigator Program has yet

[[Page 3932]]

to be determined. The overall value of the Navigator Program is, at 
best, inconclusive, and, at worst, it represents more wasted taxpayer 
dollars.
  These are just five examples of the misguided, poorly defined, and 
improperly managed aspects of the health care law. There are, of 
course, many others.
  Finally, there are the unilateral changes the administration has made 
to delay, extend or modify elements of the Affordable Care Act without 
action or even input from Congress. I have been on the floor a number 
of times to talk about the overreach on the part of the administration 
when it comes to implementing ObamaCare, so I will not go into 
excruciating detail today.
  We all know those abuses have taken place. It is no secret. Without 
statutory authority, the administration twice delayed the employer 
mandate. They created a transition period out of thin air so the 
President could pretend that his promise that ``if you like your health 
care plan, you can keep it'' was not a lie. There have been numerous 
other exemptions and special enrollment periods created to help the 
administration avoid negative fallout from patients and the business 
community--and it wasn't true that ``if you like your health care plan, 
you can keep it.''
  All told, the Obama administration has made literally dozens of 
unilateral changes to the health care law, apparently recognizing that, 
as drafted, the law is as problematic as its critics have said.
  I could go on, but I think I have sufficiently made some of the 
points that need to be made. The so-called Affordable Care Act is, by 
any objective measure, a dismal failure. While its proponents continue 
to cherry-pick favorable data points in order to fool the American 
people into thinking the law works, the majority of us know the truth: 
It is time for a change.
  It is no secret that I support a complete repeal of the President's 
health care law, but a simple repeal isn't good enough. We need to 
replace ObamaCare with health care reforms that will actually work.
  That is why I have joined my colleagues Senator Burr and Chairman 
Upton of the House Energy and Commerce Committee in unveiling the 
Patient CARE Act, a legislative proposal that will actually reduce the 
costs of health care in this country, while giving people more rights 
to choose what kind of health care for which they want to pay money.
  Our proposal is a serious, workable solution to the problems caused 
by the Affordable Care Act. It is out there for everyone to see. I, 
once again, encourage all of my colleagues to look it over and provide 
us with your thoughts and input on our ideas. We would be interested in 
hearing from you. If those ideas can be improved, we are certainly 
interested in improving them.
  Once again, the 5-year anniversary of the Affordable Care Act is 
hardly cause for celebration, but it should be a time for all of us--
particularly those who supported the law at the outset--to reflect on 
the last 5 years and decide how we want to move forward when it comes 
to the Nation's health care system. I hope our colleagues will think 
about that. This bill was passed through both bodies on a totally 
partisan vote, with 100 percent of the Democrats voting in each body.
  I think I have made a pretty compelling case for why the current law 
isn't working and why we need to go in a different direction. I hope 
eventually my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will reach this 
same conclusion so we can work together to come up with a health care 
system and health care set of laws that will work, do good for the 
American people, and give us some element of respectability in the 
Congress that I think the Congress needs at this particular time.
  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. COTTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator is recognized.


                         Negotiations With Iran

  Mr. COTTON. Madam President, this week we will debate the budget. The 
key part is the military budget, one part of our government where the 
strategy and threats must drive the budget, not vice versa. The 
greatest threat to our national security is a nuclear-armed Iran, and 
this man, Ayatollah Khomeini, the Supreme Leader of Iran.
  Last week marked Nowruz, the beginning of the Persian New Year. On 
the occasion we were treated to speeches by President Obama and Iran's 
Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khomeini. I have to say, President Obama's 
speech was ill-advised. He spoke to the Iranian people directly, asking 
them to press their leaders and speak up in support of a nuclear 
agreement.
  Let's be clear about one thing: Iranians who speak up tend to 
disappear into secret prisons or wind up hanging from cranes by the 
neck. Worse, by acting as if public opinion matters to the Ayatollahs, 
President Obama is treating Iran as if it were a legitimate democracy, 
not a brutal theocratic dictatorship. No President should legitimize 
such a regime, which emboldens the dictator and undermines the Iranian 
people struggling under his yoke.
  But today I want to focus on the speech of this man, Ayatollah 
Khomeini, the Supreme Leader of Iran. The Ayatollah gave his speech on 
Saturday, just 2 days ago. It may have escaped your attention, but it 
was not exactly a New Year's message filled with blessings of hope and 
peace.
  Ayatollah Khomeini has never been a great admirer of America, of 
course. He sometimes likes to refer to us as the ``Great Satan.'' 
During his Nowruz speech, he whipped the crowd into frenzied chants of 
``death to America.'' What was his response to that chant? He said, 
``Yes, certainly, death to America.'' Death to America. That was just 2 
days ago.
  Remember, this is the leader with whom the United States is 
negotiating today, a theocratic tyrant who, in the middle of nuclear 
negotiations, chants ``death to America.'' I suggest that we rethink 
the wisdom of granting nuclear concessions to such a man.
  Unfortunately, Ayatollah Khomeini may know his negotiating partners 
somewhat better than they know themselves, for the Ayatollah also 
observed, ``Iran's enemies, particularly America, are moving forward 
with prudence and diplomacy. I understand them. They know what they are 
doing. They need these negotiations. America needs the nuclear 
negotiations.''
  Regrettably, he is right when he says he understands his enemies, 
since the West, especially the President, acts as if we need these 
negotiations more than Iran does. After all, we had Iran on its knees 
in 2013 when President Obama gave Iran billions of dollars in sanctions 
relief for merely starting negotiations. The West has extended 
negotiations twice in exchange for nothing. The President has also made 
a series of one-sided concessions from Iran's uranium enrichment 
capabilities to the length of a nuclear agreement. So, yes, 
unfortunately, Ayatollah Khomeini is correct when he says he 
understands his enemies.
  Let's consider what he said about the negotiations in this light. 
This past weekend, the Ayatollah emphasized, ``We are absolutely not 
negotiating or holding discussions with the Americans over regional or 
domestic issues and neither over weapons capabilities.'' Again, he is 
absolutely right. Iran has a ballistic missile program, which it only 
needs if it wants to strike the United States or our European allies, 
because it already has missiles capable of striking Israel or anywhere 
else in the Middle East. Yet we have removed its missile program from 
the negotiating table, just as we have removed the possible military 
dimensions of its nuclear program from the table, even though that is 
critical to understanding how far they have progressed toward a bomb.
  It is not just their weapons capabilities. Note that the Ayatollah 
also said Iran is not negotiating over regional issues. He made this 
point repeatedly,

[[Page 3933]]

saying also, ``We are not negotiating with the Americans over regional 
issues. U.S. goals in the region are in complete contrast with our 
goals,'' and, ``Negotiations with the U.S. are only over the nuclear 
issue, and nothing else. Everyone should be aware of this.''
  By ``regional issues'' and ``our goals,'' to be clear, Ayatollah 
Khomeini means Iran's drive for regional hegemony. The outlaw Assad 
regime in Syria is more beholden to Iran than ever. Iranian-aligned 
militants have seized the capital of Yemen, causing the American 
Embassy to close and our troops to evacuate. Iranian-backed and 
Iranian-led Shiite militias are slowly taking over Iraq, and Lebanon 
remains subject to Hezbollah, Iran's terrorist proxy.
  Despite this multifront aggression, President Obama is 
compartmentalizing the nuclear negotiations as if Iran's drive for 
hegemony and its pursuit of nuclear weapons are distinguishable and 
unrelated rather than springing from the regime's revolutionary nature. 
In fact, President Obama reportedly wrote a private letter to Ayatollah 
Khomeini--his fourth private letter to the Ayatollah--in part 
reassuring him that the United States would not undermine Assad's 
regime in Syria. Is it any wonder then that the Ayatollah boasts the 
negotiations are so limited? Is it any wonder what Ayatollah Khomeini 
said this weekend about sanctions relief? President Obama and Secretary 
Kerry keep insisting that sanctions can only be lifted gradually as 
Iran demonstrates compliance with any deal. The Ayatollah is having 
none of that. He said this past weekend: ``The lifting of the sanctions 
is part of the issues being negotiated and not the outcome of the 
negotiations.'' In other words, in exchange for the Ayatollah's 
ephemeral and easily reversed promises, ``sanctions must be lifted 
immediately following an agreement.'' That is not a splittable 
difference. And let's just say our side's history of one-sided 
concessions in these negotiations does not inspire confidence that we 
will preserve a sanctions regime that we took decades to assemble 
fully.
  Finally, Ayatollah Khomeini wants the world to know that Iran will 
not be bound in perpetuity by any deal, no matter its terms. He said: 
``The Americans keep saying that there should be irreversibility in the 
terms Iran accepts and the decisions it makes. We do not accept that.'' 
The Ayatollah is happy to pocket concessions now for billions of 
dollars in sanctions relief and international legitimacy while 
preserving the option of going nuclear in the future, much as North 
Korea did after the 1994 Agreed Framework. I understand why Ayatollah 
Khomeini would want that deal, but why would we?
  This is the man with whom we are negotiating. Evil men rarely cloak 
their wicked intent, and I urge my fellow Senators and all Americans to 
pay careful attention to Ayatollah Khomeini's words both this past 
weekend and more generally. When someone chants, ``Yes, certainly, 
death to America,'' we should take him at his word and we should not 
put him on a path to a nuclear bomb. Those words are appalling enough. 
Let's not give him the ability to act on them.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                          Affordable Care Act

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I was in the House of Representatives for 
16 years, and I have been in the Senate now for 8 years. During all of 
that time, this country faced and still faces a major health care 
crisis.
  As the Presiding Officer knows, the United States is the only major 
country on Earth that does not guarantee health care to all of our 
people. Today, despite the modest gains of the Affordable Care Act, 
which I will discuss in a moment, we still have about 40 million 
Americans without any health insurance. By the way, despite so many 
uninsured and so many underinsured, we end up paying, by far, per 
capita the highest costs of any country.
  How does it happen? Millions of people are uninsured, millions more 
are underinsured, and we end up paying per capita almost double what 
any other Nation faces.
  Now, I was in the Congress during the years of the Bush 
administration, and I waited eagerly to hear what my Republican 
colleagues had to say about tens of millions of people without any 
health insurance and about the cost of health care being so expensive. 
I waited and I waited, and my Republican colleagues had nothing to say. 
Apparently, the private insurance companies were doing just great under 
that system. Drug companies were charging our people the highest prices 
in the world under that system. What is there to complain about? What 
is there to worry about? So 40 million, 50 million people have no 
health insurance and people can't afford health care, but it is no 
problem for my Republican colleagues.
  Five years ago, the Congress, with no Republican support, passed the 
Affordable Care Act. Let me be very clear. I voted for the Affordable 
Care Act. I will be the first to say that the Affordable Care Act has 
many problems and, in fact, in many ways, it did not go anywhere near 
as far as it should have gone. By far, it is not a perfect piece of 
legislation. Yet I still wait to hear what my Republican colleagues 
have to say about how we address the health care crisis, other than 
doing what they are doing in this budget, which is to repeal the 
Affordable Care Act completely.
  Let's take a look at what the Affordable Care Act--ObamaCare--has 
accomplished, which they want to end completely. After 5 years of the 
Affordable Care Act, more than 16 million Americans have gained health 
coverage. Many of those people never had health insurance in their 
entire lives. Many of those people were getting their health care 
through the emergency room at outrageously high costs. Since 2013, we 
have seen the largest decline in the uninsured rate in decades, and the 
Nation's uninsured rate is now at the lowest level ever recorded.
  Just since October 2013, the uninsured rate for nonelderly adults has 
fallen by 35 percent, and 16 million more Americans have health 
insurance.
  Republican response: Get rid of the ACA; throw 16 million Americans 
off of health insurance.
  Since the Affordable Care Act was enacted, health care prices have 
risen at the slowest rate in nearly 50 years. All of us can remember 7, 
8, 10 years ago health care insurance rates with increases of 20, 30 
percent. Since the Affordable Care Act was enacted, health prices have 
risen at the slowest rate in nearly 50 years. Are they going up? Yes, 
they are, but at the slowest rate in nearly 50 years.
  Thanks to exceptionally slow growth in per-person costs throughout 
our health care system, national health care expenditures grew at the 
slowest rate on record--on record--from 2010 through 2013. Are we 
making progress in controlling the growth in health care costs? Yes, we 
are.
  Republican response: Throw it out.
  Ten million low-income Americans are now able to get health insurance 
through Medicaid. And if one is a low-income American struggling to 
make ends meet and not able to afford health care, in many instances, 
this is health insurance that saves one's life. It saves one's life 
because they now have the opportunity--maybe for the first time in 
years--to be able to go into a doctor's office because they have 
Medicaid.
  Republican response: Throw it out; 10 million low-income Americans no 
longer have health insurance.
  All of us remember not so many years ago, before the ACA. You have 
health insurance for your family, and when your child reaches the age 
of 21, that child is now off of your health insurance plan. So we have 
huge uninsured numbers for young people in this country who are no 
longer able to be on their parents' health insurance plan.

[[Page 3934]]

  Under the Affordable Care Act, some 5.7 million young adults have 
been able to stay on their parents' policies. The uninsured rate for 
young adults has dropped by 40 percent. I would like to see it drop 
even more than that, but 40 percent is nothing to sneeze at.
  The Republican response: Let's make sure all of these young people 
from 21 to 26 rejoin the ranks of the uninsured.
  One of the great scandals that existed in this country before we had 
the Affordable Care Act--when we think back on it, people find it hard 
to believe--somebody was diagnosed with diabetes, with cancer, with 
heart disease, with AIDS, or whatever it may be, and that person walked 
into an insurance company and said: I need some insurance. They filled 
out forms. The insurance company said: Oh, you had breast cancer 3 
years ago; we are not going to insure you. You had diabetes; you are 
not going to get insurance. So the people who needed insurance the most 
were the people least likely to be able to get insurance. Can we 
imagine that--for people who had a history of heart disease, a history 
of cancer, scared to death it may reoccur, in absolute need of 
insurance, insurance companies said: No. We can discriminate against 
you. You are sick, you may get sick again, and we will have to pay out 
money. We don't want your business. Well, the ACA did something about 
that. It should have never been allowed to happen in the first place. 
It provides protections for people with preexisting conditions.
  Republicans want to end the ACA. That is in this budget. They want to 
get rid of it. So for those people who have serious illnesses, 
understand that if the Republicans succeed, people may not be able to 
get health insurance, because we will go back to a time when companies 
could discriminate against people with serious illnesses.
  Before the ACA, many individuals couldn't gain access to health 
insurance for a variety of ``illnesses,'' including pregnancy. I guess 
pregnancy is an illness for which a person doesn't deserve insurance. 
It doesn't make a lot of sense to most Americans, but that is what will 
reoccur if the Republicans are successful.
  Millions of seniors in this country are struggling in terms of how to 
pay for their medicines. The cost of medicine in America is very high--
the highest of any country on Earth. The Affordable Care Act moves to 
close the doughnut hole, which means money that has to come out of 
seniors' own pockets. If the Republican budget gets passed and if that 
gets implemented into law, seniors will now be paying significantly 
more for their prescription drugs. The Affordable Care Act includes 
important health care for seniors in the doughnut hole, including 45-
percent discounts on the cost of their drugs, but allowing the full 
price of the drug to be counted toward the amount they need to spend to 
get out of the hole.
  The Affordable Care Act gives people access to free preventive care 
that keeps them healthy and out of the hospital.
  The Affordable Care Act ends discrimination against women by health 
insurance companies so that they don't have to pay more for health 
insurance simply because they are a woman. Are we going to go back to 
the days when because a patient was a woman, she had to pay more for 
health insurance than a man? I certainly hope not. But that is what 
happens if we end the Affordable Care Act.
  The Affordable Care Act protects against a practice by insurance 
companies of including lifetime limits in their policies. Prior to the 
ACA, many insurance plans included lifetime limits--a limit on the 
amount of coverage that plan would provide an individual or a family in 
their lifetime. So, in other words, if somebody was racking up large 
claims because they were seriously ill, the insurance company said: 
Sorry, that is it. We are not going to pay any more. Are those the days 
we want to go back to?
  I think we can all agree the Affordable Care Act is far from perfect. 
In my own view, we should provide health care to every person in this 
country as a right, and I would do it through a Medicare-for-all 
program. Other people have different ideas. But it is hard for me to 
imagine anyone thinking that the solution to America's health care 
problems today is simply to eliminate the Affordable Care Act.
  Let me change topics and take a broader look at the Republican budget 
going beyond the Affordable Care Act, which they want to abolish.
  The question we have to ask ourselves is whether we are such a poor 
country that we should move toward a Republican budget which forces 
more and more people to have no health insurance; which makes it harder 
for working families to send their kids to college; which makes it 
harder for low-income families to send their kids to Head Start; which 
cuts back on nutrition programs, whether it is the Food Stamp Program, 
the Meals on Wheels program, the WIC Program; which helps people who 
are struggling, literally, to try to come up with the income to 
adequately feed themselves. We have many people in this country who are 
actually hungry, and the Republican budget cuts those programs. Are we 
such a poor country that those are the choices that stand before us? I 
think not. I think the facts are quite the opposite. I think the facts 
tell us that the United States of America is, in fact, the wealthiest 
country on this planet. In fact, we have never been a more wealthy 
country. We are not a poor country. We are an extremely wealthy 
country.
  The problem we face is that we have a grotesque level of income and 
wealth inequality such that tens of millions of families are struggling 
economically and many are hungry, while at the other side, people on 
top are doing phenomenally well. But when you add it all together, it 
turns out that we are a very wealthy country. And the idea that people 
would come forward and say: We are going to make it harder for low-
income families to feed their kids, we are going to make it harder for 
working-class families to send their kids to college, and we are going 
to make it harder for working families to get their kids into childcare 
is a totally absurd argument. We are not a poor country.
  Let me demonstrate how we are not a poor country. When some of us 
talk about the rich getting richer, that is a general statement. Let me 
be more specific. From the year 2013 to the year 2015, the wealthiest 
14 Americans--14 people--increased their net wealth by more than $157 
billion over the last 2 years. The wealthiest 14 billionaires in 
America saw their net wealth increase by more than $157 billion from 
2013 to 2015.
  Let me be even more specific, and tell me whether this is a poor 
nation that cuts kids off of health insurance, a poor nation that 
denies nutrition to families who need it, a poor nation that cuts back 
on Meals on Wheels for elderly, low-income seniors. Here is what is 
going on in this ``poor nation.'' From March of 2013 to March of 2015, 
Bill Gates, the wealthiest person in America, saw his wealth increase 
by $12.2 billion, going from $67 billion to $79 billion in 2015. During 
that period, Warren Buffett saw his wealth increase by $19 billion--one 
guy in 2 years. Larry Ellison saw his wealth increase by $11 billion. 
The Koch brothers saw their wealth increase by almost $18 billion in a 
2-year period. The Waltons saw huge increases in their wealth--they are 
the wealthiest family in America--Christy Walton by $13.5 billion, Jim 
Walton by $13.9 billion, and S. Robson Walton by $13 billion. Michael 
Bloomberg saw his wealth increase by $8.5 billion. Jeff Bezos's wealth 
went up by $9.6 billion. Mark Zuckerberg's wealth went up by $20 
billion, Sheldon Adelson's by $9.5 billion, Larry Page's by $7.6 
billion, and Sergey Brin's by $6.4 billion. These are just the top 14. 
Added together, their wealth increased by $157 billion.
  This is a reality my Republican friends don't want to deal with. They 
do not want to ask the wealthiest people in this country--many of whom 
are paying an effective tax rate lower than that paid by truckdrivers 
and nurses--to start paying their fair share of taxes. Their solution 
to the deficit problem is to cut programs for working families, the 
elderly, the children, the sick, and the poor.

[[Page 3935]]

  Despite the fact that the billionaires of this country are doing 
phenomenally well, their view is, oh no, we can't go to those guys. 
They may be potential campaign contributors. We are going to go after 
the elderly--they don't contribute a whole lot. Elderly people on the 
Meals on Wheels program, elderly people making $14,000 a year--they 
have no political power here in Washington. They have no lobbyists out 
there. We will just go after the working families, the poor, the 
elderly, the children, the sick. They are easy. They are not actively 
involved. Many of them don't even vote. We can go after them, but we 
have to protect the interests of the wealthy and the powerful.
  At a time when the richest 400 Americans paid a tax rate of just 16.7 
percent in 2012--the second lowest on record--the Republican budget 
does nothing to ask the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share of 
taxes to create jobs or reduce the deficit. They are immune. The rich 
get richer, but leave them alone. No problem. Working families pay a 
higher effective tax rate than billionaires--not a problem because we 
are going to cut the deficit by going after the most vulnerable people 
in this country, the people who don't have a lot of political power.
  While the effective tax rate of large, profitable corporations was 
just 12.6 percent in 2010 and corporate profits are at an alltime high, 
the Republican budget does nothing to end the outrageous loopholes that 
allow major corporations to avoid $100 billion a year in taxes by 
shifting their profits to the Cayman Islands and other offshore tax 
havens.
  Now, why would you ask large, profitable corporations that in some 
cases pay zero in Federal income taxes to start paying their fair share 
of taxes? These are powerful people. These are people who have 
lobbyists all over Capitol Hill. These are people who make campaign 
contributions. Why would we ask them to start paying their fair share 
of taxes?
  At a time when billionaire hedge fund managers on Wall Street pay a 
lower effective tax rate than a truckdriver or a nurse, the Republican 
budget does not eliminate the carried interest loophole that will cost 
the Federal Government $16 billion in lost revenue over the next 10 
years. The Republican budget protects over $40 billion in unnecessary 
and expensive tax breaks and subsidies for oil and gas companies even 
as the five largest oil companies alone made more than $1 trillion in 
profits over the last decade. Ask large, profitable oil companies to 
pay more in taxes? Don't be ridiculous--not when you can cut programs 
for hungry kids or cut Head Start or cut Pell grants for working-class 
young people.
  Let me tell you what this budget does do. At a time when millions of 
Americans are working longer hours for lower wages, the Republican 
budget paves the way for a tax hike averaging over $900 per person for 
13 million families--$900 apiece for more than 13 million families with 
25 million children--by allowing the expansions of the earned-income 
tax credit and the child tax credit to expire.
  So we can't ask billionaires who are doing phenomenally well to pay 
more in taxes. That we don't do. We can't ask corporations that stash 
their money in tax havens in the Cayman Islands to start paying their 
fair share of taxes. We can't do that. But what we can do is impact the 
lives of millions of working families by allowing the earned-income tax 
credit and the child tax credit to expire. In other words, we raise 
taxes for low-income Americans and working-class Americans and the 
middle class, but we do not ask the wealthy and large corporations to 
pay a nickel more in taxes.
  Further, the Republican budget paves the way for a tax hike of about 
$1,100 for 12 million families and students paying for college by 
allowing the American opportunity tax credit to expire. So if you are a 
family trying to send your kid to college, you are going to have to pay 
more because our Republican colleagues are allowing the American 
opportunity tax credit to expire.
  The Republican Senate budget would balance the budget on the backs of 
the elderly, the children, the sick, and the most vulnerable people in 
our society. It would slash investments in education, health care, 
nutrition, and affordable housing, while paving the way for another 
unpaid war by significantly increasing defense spending. It also would 
not ask millionaires, billionaires, and profitable corporations to 
contribute one penny for deficit reduction. No, it is only working 
families, the middle class, and low-income people who have to help us 
with deficit reduction, not billionaires or large corporations.
  As we all know, the budget we are debating today is not an 
appropriations bill; it is a budget bill, which, by the way, is filled 
with magic asterisks--those little asterisks which tell us nothing 
about how Republicans are going to be moving toward a balanced budget. 
But by making over $5 trillion in budget cuts over the next decade--$5 
trillion--reasonable estimates have been made about the harm those cuts 
would do to the American people.
  At a time when the cost of college education is becoming out of reach 
for millions of Americans, the Republican budget would eliminate 
mandatory Pell grants, cutting this program by nearly $90 billion over 
10 years, which would increase the cost of a college education to more 
than 8 million Americans.
  Take a deep breath and think about this. Young people all over this 
country--and I know this because at a lot of Vermont high schools, when 
you talk to kids, they are wondering how they are going to be able to 
afford to go to college. They are worried about the high cost of 
college. The Republican solution is to cut--eliminate mandatory Pell 
grants, cutting this program by over $90 billion during a 10-year 
period. So what they are doing is making a very difficult situation 
even more difficult in terms of enabling the middle-class and working 
families in this country to be able to send their kids to college.
  I think everybody who has children or grandchildren understands that 
we have a major preschool and childcare crisis in this country, and in 
Vermont and all over this Nation, it is very difficult for middle-
income Americans to find decent, quality, affordable childcare or 
preschool education for their kids. Within that context of a crisis in 
childcare, the Republican solution is to give us a budget that would 
mean that 110,000 fewer young people, young children, would be able to 
enroll in Head Start over the next 10 years.
  So we have a crisis in terms of higher education, and what they do is 
cut back on Pell grants, making it harder for families to send their 
kids to college. We have a crisis in childcare, and what the 
Republicans do is cut back on Head Start, meaning that 110,000 fewer 
young children would be able to get into the Head Start Program. Under 
the Republican budget, 1.9 million fewer students would receive the 
academic help they need to succeed in school because of some $12 
billion in cuts to the title I education program. The Individuals With 
Disabilities Education Act would be cut by $10 billion over the next 
decade, which would shift the cost to States and local school districts 
and could lead to increased property taxes for millions of Americans.
  At a time when there are more than 20 million hungry Americans, 
people who in the course of the week are not quite sure how they are 
going to get the food they need to survive, when many working families 
are running to emergency food shelters in order to get the help they 
need to feed their families, the Republican budget would take some 1.2 
million women, infants, and young people from the WIC Program, or the 
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and 
Children, which goes to pregnant women and new mothers. They would cut 
that by $10 billion over a 10-year period, impacting some 1.2 million 
women, infants, and young children.
  Once again, we do not ask billionaires to start paying their fair 
share of taxes, but we tell the pregnant mother or the mother of a 
young child that the nutrition programs she has been receiving to make 
sure her kids are eating well are going to be cut by $10 billion over a 
10-year period.

[[Page 3936]]

  I come from a cold-weather State, and we have had a very rough 
February. Only yesterday, the weather in my hometown was about 10 
degrees.
  Under the Republican budget, up to 900,000 families would be denied 
the help they need to stay warm in the winter and cool in the summer by 
cuts to the LIHEAP program, or the Low Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program--a $5 billion cut over the next decade impacting some 900,000 
families. Many of the people on LIHEAP are seniors--a good percentage 
of them. These are elderly people without a lot of money in cold-
weather States trying to keep warm in the wintertime. We are going to 
see a $5 billion cut in that program over the next decade.
  In Vermont, and I think in many parts of this country, we have a real 
housing problem for low-income people. The cost of rent in many cases 
is much more than people can afford. People are spending 40, 50 percent 
of their limited incomes on rent.
  To address that problem, the Republican budget would kick nearly half 
a million families off the section 8 affordable housing program and out 
of their homes by cutting section 8 by $46 billion over a 10-year 
period.
  So you have low-income people all over this country--and I see it 
every day in Vermont--paying 40, 50, 60 percent of their income for 
rents, and what the Republican budget does is it cuts $46 billion over 
10 years from section 8 housing, again, making a bad situation worse.
  At a time when real unemployment is 11 percent, the Republican budget 
cuts job training and employment services for more than 2 million 
Americans.
  So what we have is a budget which in many ways is a Robin Hood budget 
in reverse. At a time when the rich are getting richer and the middle 
class is getting poorer, the Republicans take from the middle class and 
working families to give more to the rich and large corporations.
  The Republican budget has a set of priorities that are way, way, way 
out of touch with where the American people are.
  During the next week, there are going to be a number of amendments 
being offered by Members on our side which will create jobs for the 
unemployed, raise wages for low-income workers, address the overtime 
crisis facing millions of Americans who are not getting time and a half 
when they should, provide pay equity for women workers, address this 
issue of tax breaks for the rich and large corporations, which are 
unconscionable and unsustainable. That is what we will be doing. I look 
forward to that debate and those amendments.
  I note that Senator Markey is on the floor and has asked for 10 
minutes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I wish to follow on the comments that were 
being articulated by the Senator from Vermont. He has done an excellent 
job laying out these issues for the American people to deliberate upon 
this week as we debate the budget of the United States of America.
  Right now, millions of Americans are gripped by March Madness and the 
Final Four showdown, but for our Nation's seniors and the middle class, 
the real March madness is happening in Congress with the proposed 
Republican budget.
  Our country isn't like the big dance. Our country was not built on a 
zero-sum game, where one side wins and the other side loses. But that 
is exactly what this Republican budget does. It picks winners, and it 
picks losers.
  Let's take a look at the GOP's budget brackets. The Republican final 
four features their perennial favorites. In the first game, they have 
seniors versus special interests.
  Well, in this Republican budget, it removes 11 million families from 
Medicaid, including 400,000 seniors in my State of Massachusetts alone. 
It turns Medicare into a voucher program. It forces millions of 
seniors, including 80,000 in Massachusetts who receive Medicare, to pay 
$1,000 more for their prescription drugs next year. It does all of this 
while preserving tax breaks for special interests, such as the 
deductions for corporate jets and for shipping jobs overseas.
  The budget preserves billions for atomic bombs of the past--supported 
by the defense industry--which is why I introduced legislation today to 
cut $100 billion over 10 years from our bloated nuclear weapons 
program.
  So there are no surprises yet in the GOP budget bracket. Special 
interests advance and seniors lose. That is the first match. Seniors 
lose. It is not unexpected.
  In the next game, it is a battle of generations. It is the old guard 
of Wall Street against the new blood of our Nation, our students. So 
what does the GOP budget do?
  Well, it cuts 8 million Pell grants for college students by almost 
one-third, making college less affordable for millions of young people 
and their families. It yanks 100,000 children from the Head Start 
Program over the next 10 years. It does all that while not meeting the 
needs of the Wall Street cops on the beat at the Commodity Futures 
Trading Commission, and it puts Americans at risk from predatory 
lenders and credit card scams by continuing the GOP effort to kill the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. So in the battle between the Wall 
Street boardrooms and America's classrooms, it is the big money over 
the little guy yet again.
  In the next David versus Goliath matchup, it is America's working 
families against billionaires. Surely the spirit and character of 
America's working families is deserving of a win. But there is no 
Cinderella story with the Republican budget. That is because it kicks 
nearly 900,000 families off of low-income energy assistance. So 
families will need to decide between heating and eating.
  This budget includes $660 billion in cuts over the next decade to 
Federal programs that lift up our most vulnerable, such as food stamps, 
school lunches, school nutrition programs--slashed, slashed, slashed. 
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 69 percent of 
nondefense cuts included in the House and Senate budget resolutions 
come from these programs that serve the poor, the sick, and the needy 
in our society.
  This budget sticks to the Republican policy of not increasing the 
minimum wage, keeping millions of Americans who want to get into the 
middle class out of the game. Are the billionaires asked to do more 
with less? Do they have any tax breaks taken away? Do they pay a little 
more to make sure the less fortunate are better off?
  No, the Republican refs make sure that the Republican playing field 
remains tilted in their favor. It is another win for the rich.
  Now, the matchup we have all been waiting for is the Big Oil 
juggernaut against clean energy and climate change. In a Republican 
Senate, Big Oil is undefeated, but can upstart American clean energy 
companies pull out a win? Well, the Republican budget protects billions 
of dollars in subsidies to the oil companies while killing the wind 
energy tax credit. The Republican unwillingness to extend the tax 
credit has already cost us 30,000 American jobs in the last few years.
  Republicans continue to deny the existence of climate change by 
stopping funding to protect communities against sea level rise and 
stronger storms, even though 2014 was the warmest year on record and 
extreme weather impacted every part of the country. It does all of this 
while handing over more of our public land to Big Oil and to coal 
companies instead of preserving it for all Americans.
  So, who is the winner? No surprise, Big Oil. They keep all of their 
tax breaks, even as we are taking money away from seniors, from 
students, from working families, and from a clean energy future in our 
country. It is no surprise, because when you have the Republican budget 
final four--special interests, Wall Street, billionaires, and Big Oil--
the fix was in from the start.
  Unlike the March Madness games we love to watch each year, there are 
never any upsets in the Republicans' bracket. There are no budget 
buzzer beaters. In fact, the only ones upset here are grandma, grandpa, 
students, clean energy workers, and hardworking Americans.

[[Page 3937]]

  Senate Republicans, once again, are trotting out their well-worn 
playbook to pick the winners and losers in our society and in our 
economy, because in this budget, there are clear winners and there are 
clear losers. Special interests score huge on big tax breaks. Wall 
Street gets to block legislation. Billionaires take a bigger share of 
the winnings, and Big Oil remains undefeated.
  Meanwhile, American families and industries lose. Seniors pay more 
for health care. Working families pay more for energy. Students pay 
more for college. Clean energy companies cut more workers, stopping 
this incredible clean energy revolution in our country.
  This is the real March madness, the Republican budget that makes 
winners out of Big Oil and billionaires, while the clock runs out on 
seniors and hardworking Americans, who are left to fend for themselves.
  I implore my colleagues to reject this scheme and to create a plan 
that does not bust the budgets of families across this Nation. I call 
upon my colleagues to reject this completely and totally distorted 
sense of priorities for our country.
  I call for my colleagues to put together a budget for the future of 
our country that invests in students, invests in clean energy, invests 
in research, and invests in what the 21st century should be all about, 
while we pay the proper respect to the seniors in our country.
  We cannot leave behind the poor, the sick, and the elderly. We have 
obligations in this country. We understand that this country has been 
made the great country that it is--the greatest in the history of the 
world--by remembering our obligations to all of those who built our 
country--not just those in the upper 1 percentile, who have been the 
primary beneficiaries, but the other 99 percent who got up every single 
morning and went to work as well, the other 99 percent who built this 
country and its values from the ground up. We have an obligation to 
them as well. This Republican budget does not reflect that.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the Republican budget. I again thank my 
colleague from the State of Vermont for being an articulate, 
passionate, and moral voice that ensures that this debate is heard by 
every single person in our country.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I just want to reiterate what I think is 
the key point in this entire debate, and that point is whether we 
develop a budget that works for the vast majority of our families--
working families, middle-class families who, in many instances, are 
working longer hours for lower wages--whether it works for our children 
at a time when we are experiencing the highest rate of childhood 
poverty of any major country; whether it works for our elderly citizens 
who often have to make the choice about whether to heat their homes, 
buy the medicines they need or buy the food they need--and there are 
millions of people in that position--or do we have a budget that works 
for the top 1 percent of people who are doing phenomenally well or 
maybe even the top one-tenth of 1 percent.
  I want to get back to this chart, which I think is real interesting. 
I want everybody to take a deep breath and think about this. At a time 
when the top one-tenth of 1 percent owns almost as much wealth as the 
bottom 90 percent, when the people on top, the very wealthiest 
Americans, are doing well almost beyond imagination, do we really want 
to cut food stamps and nutrition programs for hungry kids? Do we really 
want to make college education less affordable for working families? Do 
we really want to ask seniors to pay more for prescription drugs--those 
people trying to live on $13,000, $14,000 a year.
  So here is the chart. This comes from Forbes magazine, not notably a 
leftwing publication. They simply give us the facts, and here are the 
facts. The top 14 wealthiest people in this country have seen their net 
worth increase by $157 billion over the last 2 years--14 people.
  Do my Republican colleagues go to these people and say: You know 
what, you are Americans. We have a lot of problems here. Our middle 
class is disappearing. We have an infrastructure which is crumbling. We 
have millions of families who can't afford to send their kids to 
college. You, the top one-tenth of 1 percent, are doing phenomenally 
well. Is it so hard for my Republican colleagues to say to these 
people: Maybe you will have to pay a little more in taxes.
  Let me list them. Bill Gates, in that 2-year period from 2013 to 
2015, saw his wealth increase by $12 billion; Warren Buffet, $19 
billion; Larry Ellison, $11 billion; Charles Koch, almost $9 billion; 
David Koch, almost $9 billion; Christy Walton, over $13 billion; Jim 
Walton, almost $14 billion; S. Robson Walton, $13 billion; Michael 
Bloomberg, $8.5 billion; Jeff Bezos, $9.6 billion; Mark Zuckerberg, $20 
billion; Sheldon Adelson, $4.9 billion; Larry Page, $6.7 billion; and 
Sergey Brin, over $6 billion.
  That is just the increase in their net worth in a 2-year period. Who 
can deny the very richest people in this country are doing phenomenally 
well? How do you ignore that reality? How do you not say to those 
people: You are going to have to help us with our infrastructure, with 
education, with our deficit.
  But my Republican colleagues have a different approach. Their 
approach is to say to working families: Well, we are going to make it 
harder for your kids to get into Head Start. We are going to make it 
harder for you to get the nutrition programs you need to keep your 
family from going hungry. We are going to make it harder for seniors to 
get the prescription drugs they need.
  So I think, with this budget, the choices are pretty clear. It is 
laid right out there. Republicans want to balance the budget on the 
backs of the elderly, the children, the sick and the poor, and protect 
all of these guys--not ask them to pay one nickel more in taxes. I 
think that is wrong from a moral perspective, from an economic 
perspective, and I think this is a budget that should be defeated.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COATS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                          State Of The Economy

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that reserved time 
is now available for the Joint Economic Committee, particularly in 
regard to presenting the report which is part of the budgetary process, 
so I will go forward with that.
  It is an honor for me to serve as chairman of the Joint Economic 
Committee. One of the main roles of that committee is to report to the 
Senate Budget Committee and to my colleagues in the Senate on the state 
of the economy, and that is why I am here today.
  Just last week, Dr. Jason Furman, the chairman of the President's 
Council of Economic Advisers, appeared before the Joint Economic 
Committee to discuss this topic as well as to discuss the findings of 
the annual Economic Report of the President. Our committee is tasked 
with evaluating and responding to that President's Economic Report. 
Last week our committee released our findings and recommendations, and 
I am here today to present some of those findings.
  We found that despite improvements in economic conditions over the 
past year, our economy remains stuck in second gear. Let me discuss why 
we have concluded that.

[[Page 3938]]

  I often hear back home from Hoosiers--and I know my colleagues hear 
back home from people they represent--that we need to take action to 
grow the economy. I think it is safe to say that of course all of us in 
the Senate think the same way. But the age-old question in economics is 
this: How does a nation best create an environment for economic growth 
and raise living standards for its citizens?
  We are now nearly 6 years into this recovery. While there are many 
encouraging signs of economic improvement, particularly in the last 
several months, the recovery has been modest and there still are many 
Americans in need of and still seeking meaningful job opportunities.
  Since 1960, our Nation has experienced seven recessions and 
recoveries. The recoveries of the past 50 years provide comparative 
data to measure the progress of our current recovery. On the measures 
of GDP, jobs, and income growth, our current recovery ranks either dead 
last or second to last in all of those seven recoveries. Let me restate 
that.
  In the last 50 years we have had 7 major recessions. Following those 
recessions has been an economic recovery. As things get sorted out, the 
economy kicks back in. If we take all those seven and we average them 
out in terms of what the results were following the recession, we get 
certain numbers. What we have seen now in this last recession is 
performance far under the average--in fact, dead last--of those seven. 
I will give a couple of metrics here.
  Annual gross domestic product--the total of everything produced--has 
a value and grew 4 percent in the average post-1960 recovery, while 
this recovery has averaged just 2.3 percent of gross domestic product 
growth. So we are growing about half of the average of the previous 
recessions.
  Personal income rose an average of 15.3 percent in the past 
recoveries. During this recovery, personal income has reached only 7.1 
percent growth--less than half of what the average is for the previous 
seven recoveries.
  At the same time, median household income has collapsed by $2,100 in 
real terms per family during this current recovery.
  And while the pace of job creation has picked up recently, there are 
still 5.5 million fewer private sector jobs in this recovery than the 
average of past recoveries.
  In addition, the labor force participation rate--the percentage of 
working-age Americans who have a job or are looking for a job--has 
fallen to 35-year lows. What this means is reduction in the 
unemployment rate over the past year is at least partially the result 
of many Americans giving up on looking for work. This, contrary to what 
our President said in his State of the Union Address, is not something 
to be proud of.
  So we must ask ourselves: Why is this recovery so different? What 
does the future economic situation look like for the average American 
family?
  In our Republican Joint Economic Committee Response, we find that 
these questions are addressed partly by the historic factors identified 
in the President's report.
  For instance, there is mutual concern about the labor market scars 
that remain in the aftermath of the recent recession, as well as the 
challenges to restoring a more productive and participatory workforce. 
Where we differ with the President is on how to best address these 
problems and what policies we can offer that will return us to, at a 
minimum, the average of past recoveries. We are not asking for the Moon 
here. Although we would like to see growth exceed the average of the 
past, we are simply saying: What policies do we need to enact just to 
get back to the average recovery? And we are half of that, as I said.
  We differ with the President on how best to address these problems 
and what policies we can offer that will return us, at a minimum, to 
the average of past recoveries. Unfortunately, we have found that many 
of the recommendations put forth in the President's report would not 
deliver the benefits the administration projects. For instance, the 
administration's proposal to increase the minimum wage would result in 
reduced job opportunities. That has been documented over and over in 
testimony before our committee by analysts and economists who have 
looked at this. It freezes out those seeking entry-level jobs--a start, 
a foot in the door, the ability to show you can come to work and do a 
good day's work, arrive on time and don't leave before your time ends. 
You could be a productive person, and up the ladder they go. That entry 
level is killed when we raise the minimum wage beyond what the market 
calls for. We end up losing a lot of small businesses that provide 
those entry-level jobs, or end up hiring on a part-time basis to avoid 
that result.
  Additionally, the economic report of the President insufficiently 
addresses the challenges we face in terms of improving the American 
economy, improving economic mobility, preparing students in the 
workforce, enacting progrowth policies, and addressing our long-term 
fiscal challenges. Allow me, if I could, to discuss these items in 
greater detail.
  Let's look at economic mobility. For example, the Obama 
administration continues to press income inequality as an issue, when 
it would be better to focus on policies that improve economic mobility. 
Economic mobility is far more important for Americans as they move 
through different stages of life--from making less income after 
graduation, to starting the process of building a career, building a 
resume, to building up earnings through a career experience, and 
establishing families, to accumulate savings for retirement, and other 
goals that all of us have gone through and many are going through and 
many hope to go through as they look forward to meaningful work in the 
future.
  Despite good intentions, President Obama continues to pursue policies 
that impede job growth and real income growth. This restrains economic 
mobility.
  Nearly 6 years now into the current recovery, Americans are only just 
beginning to see signs of significant income growth--and income growth 
feeds into upward economic mobility. My hope and our hope is this 
growth will continue to strengthen in the coming years. But we need a 
change of policies from this administration if this is going to happen.
  Let's look at education reform. We also differ with the President in 
the area of education reform. It is becoming increasingly clear that 
traditional solutions no longer work in today's labor market. The 
connection between education and jobs is fractured, and repairing this 
connection requires collaboration with employers who know what skills 
their workers need.
  Education remains an area ripe for reform, yet the Obama 
administration has preferred to promote the idea of making community 
college free rather than focus on the existing education deficits 
experienced by so many students across the country. Many low-income 
Americans are already able to receive a community college education for 
free if they are eligible for Pell grants. But the real question here 
is: What kind of curriculum will they be taking as they enter the 
education process? To simply go into a system that is not coordinating 
and cooperating with the private industry in terms of the skills needed 
for them to grow and to join that particular means of production is 
sadly lacking in the President's proposals.
  Today, many of the classes offered at community colleges are 
remedial. They are compensating for deficits in education at the high 
school level. Many students find themselves unprepared for even the 
most basic postsecondary courses at the community college and 
university levels, let alone for skilled jobs that offer good pay. 
Until we address this fundamental foundational underpinning in terms of 
how to receive the right education, we have to address these questions 
rather than just simply say: Everybody go; don't worry, the taxpayer 
will pay for your tuition; take whatever courses you want. That simply 
is not the model.
  In Indiana, we have a consolidated model now, working with private 
industry and our 2-year colleges, which is

[[Page 3939]]

producing terrific results because we are matching the skills needed 
with the curriculum and teaching that provides those needs.
  For these students, finding a good job remains a challenge, as does 
our ability to address those in this category who have given up looking 
for a job. That takes us to the labor participation rate.
  The labor force participation rate for those age 20 to 29 is more 
than 4 percent lower now than in 2007. And the lower that goes, the 
easier it is to achieve an unemployment number that sounds good but 
really is false because the factor of labor participation is skewing 
the results.
  Furthermore, for those who find a job in that 20-to-29 category, the 
Federal Reserve board survey of young workers reveals that only 42 
percent of those surveyed reported having a job that is closely related 
to their field of study. Students' time and resources need to be better 
invested so they can enter the workforce truly equipped, and without 
needless delay and countless dollars spent on a degree that leaves them 
unemployed or jobless. This is a major challenge to our education 
system, and the President's education proposals fall far short of the 
reforms needed to address these challenges.
  Let's look at growth and productivity--absolutely essential if we are 
going to have a growing economy and provide more jobs for more people. 
As it stands, the United States remains one of the most productive 
economies in the world. We can treasure that. We can celebrate that. 
However, much concern remains about whether America will be able to 
sustain that productivity of which it proved capable over the last half 
century, but there is a real question today as to whether that can be 
sustained.
  Business creation, entrepreneurship, and technological innovations 
have slowed over the past decade, alarmingly. If these trends prove to 
be more than temporary, then they will have negative consequences for 
America's standard of living.
  Productivity and labor force participation growth alone cannot 
address the Federal spending problems that have been years in the 
making. It appears the administration has not stopped to consider the 
effects of existing regulations and government policies.
  ObamaCare's effects on labor force participation and hours worked 
continue to drive down productivity. Economist Casey Mulligan estimates 
that, if fully implemented, by 2017 ObamaCare's long-term effect will 
translate to roughly 3 percent less in weekly employment--3 percent 
fewer total hours worked, and 2 percent less in labor income. That is 
not how to boost productivity. That is a killer of increase in 
productivity.
  Nonetheless, the Obama administration prefers to add more spending 
programs to the existing structure in an attempt to counterbalance the 
current disincentives to work.
  In contrast, we--Republicans on the committee--believe aggressive 
action on progrowth policies will improve the future economic situation 
of American families.
  As we detail our report to Congress, there are three areas where 
immediate opportunity to kick-start our economy and provide for the 
sustained growth needed to address the current fiscal and economic 
growth challenges we face that need to be implemented--one, 
comprehensive tax reform; two, implementation of foreign trade 
agreements; and three, regulatory relief. Let's take those three in a 
little deeper discussion.
  Tax reform. The need for comprehensive, pro-growth tax reform could 
not be clearer. There is admission on both sides of the aisle in this 
Chamber--the Republicans and the Democrats--that we have gone far too 
long in terms of dealing with tax reform of our current taxation 
system. The Administration and Members of Congress in both parties 
agreed that it's broken. It is loaded with so many exemptions, 
exclusions, subsidies, credits, special interest provisions, rules and 
regulations, it is incomprehensible to fathom the complexity of this 
current system. It is hurting our economy.
  For example, the U.S. corporate tax rate is the highest in the 
developed world. If American businesses are going to be able to compete 
in a global market, it has to be significantly lower. There is consent 
on this. The President has acknowledged that this is needed and that 
this is the case. Yet we see little if any policy coming forward--
direct policy--from the White House and from our Democratic friends as 
to whether we should go forward.
  I am hopeful that the Ways and Means Committee in the House and the 
Finance Committee in the Senate, of which I am a Member, will take this 
seriously and will address this issue in a comprehensive way. 
Unfortunately, the President's framework may not lead to the desired 
goals of productivity and other economic gains because with a tax code 
of 4 million words and compliance costs to American families and 
businesses equaling $168 billion a year, it is not surprising that 9 
out of 10 Americans turn to a paid preparer or computer software to 
calculate their tax burden. Six billion hours are spent every year by 
Americans simply trying to figure out their tax return or get their tax 
return taken care of, and an extraordinary amount of money is spent on 
having someone else prepare that return because it is simply 
incomprehensible for most Americans to address.
  Progrowth tax reform would simplify the Tax Code for individuals and 
families, reduce the corporate rate, lower individual rates paid by 
small businesses, and make our individual tax system more competitive 
in the global market. By comparison, the Administration's suggested 28 
percent corporate tax rate and hybrid territorial and worldwide tax 
system would still place the United States among the highest global tax 
rates and would still continue to put American businesses at a 
competitive disadvantage.
  Let's look at trade. Another area of agreement between Congress and 
the administration, so-called, is the pursuit of more trade 
opportunities. President Obama's National Export Initiative aimed to 
increase the level of exports to $3.14 trillion before 2015 in order to 
support up to 2 million jobs, but it fell far short of that goal.
  The opportunity to improve GDP growth is available now, pending the 
administration's efforts to secure trade promotion authority to 
finalize new trade agreements. During the State of the Union Address, 
one of the few topics that brought Republicans to their feet, cheering 
in support, was the President's call for trade promotion authority. 
Yet, it appears--and I remain concerned--that the President and the 
administration are not really working hard enough and putting the 
pressure on their own party Members to secure the necessary support of 
Congress to achieve this much needed result.
  The President should fully engage with Congress to ensure passage of 
trade promotion authority. This is a necessary policy if we are to get 
the kind of economic growth we need. With these trade agreements, we 
can expand market access for American goods and services and improve 
the economic well-being of Americans and of citizens in our trade 
partner countries.
  Regulatory burden. We have to stem the rising tide of regulatory 
redtape. According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, the cost 
of complying with Federal regulations exceeds $1.75 trillion every year 
for U.S. businesses, and it disproportionately affects small 
businesses. This amounts to more than $10,500 per American worker.
  Furthermore, the administration has launched an aggressive assault on 
fossil fuels and the low-cost electricity they provide. In addition to 
the EPA's harmful carbon regulations, the administration has unleashed 
more than a dozen rules aimed at eliminating coal-fired plants in the 
United States.
  We cannot neglect the costs and effects of new major regulations 
under ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank that continue to subdue business 
investment and job growth.
  Taken individually, each burdensome regulation increases costs to 
American families and slows economic growth. Taken collectively, these 
regulations hang as a giant albatross around the necks of working 
people and American

[[Page 3940]]

businesses, both large and small. To reduce excessive regulations, 
Federal agencies need to review and remove outdated and ineffective 
rules and should more fully evaluate the costs and benefits of any 
proposed rule.
  I would like to turn now to the long-term effects and fiscal health 
that is a challenge to all, each and every one of us. I have spoken at 
some length about this recent recovery and our report's findings. In 
addition to working to improve the recovery in the short term, we must 
also address the greatest threat to a successful economic America--our 
long-term fiscal health.
  Earlier this year, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued 
its updated budget and economic outlook for the next decade. The report 
warned that under current law, if we just stay where we are and don't 
make adjustments, ``large and growing federal debt would have serious 
negative consequences, including increasing federal spending for 
interest payments; restraining economic growth in the long term; giving 
policymakers less flexibility to respond to unexpected challenges; and 
eventually heightening the risk of a fiscal crisis.''
  Federal Reserve Chairman Yellen said essentially the same thing when 
she appeared last year before the Joint Economic Committee. Her answer 
highlighted why the long-term deficits Washington currently is 
projected to run must be addressed. I put that question to Chairman 
Yellen, Chairman of the Fed, and this was her answer:

       There is more work to do to put fiscal policy on a 
     sustainable course... Progress has been made over the last 
     several years in bringing down deficits in the short term, 
     but [through] a combination of demographics, the structure of 
     entitlement programs, and historic trends in health-care 
     costs, we can see that, over the long term, deficits will 
     rise to unsustainable levels relative to the economy.

  With these comments, the Fed Chairwoman joined a long list of 
academics, economists, and business leaders who have all stated the 
obvious: Unless the United States makes politically difficult but 
absolutely necessary spending choices in the near term, eventually we 
are going to face a debt-induced crisis in the future. It is only a 
matter of time. The clock is running down. We continue to postpone the 
ever-more-necessary policy changes that will help us avoid the coming 
fiscal crisis. It is there for everybody to see. That clock has been 
running now for tens of years. Republican Presidents and Democratic 
Presidents have watched this grow, the deficit spending and national 
debt--plunge into national debt at a staggering rate. The consequences 
will come home to roost, and they will affect not only our own 
generation but in particular our children's generation and our 
grandchildren's generation and generations to come if we don't address 
this.
  In fact, if interest rates were not artificially held down by the Fed 
at historically low levels, we might already be facing our day of 
reckoning. According to the Congressional Budget Office, even a 1 
percentage point increase in interest rates would add $1.7 trillion to 
the deficits of the United States over a 10-year period of time. That 
is just a 1-percent increase in interest rates. If we go back to 
average, we will be looking at a 3-percent or 4-percent or maybe even a 
5-percent interest rate level. Each one would cost us $1.7 trillion 
over a 10-year period of time. That new debt would occur without any 
changes in spending or taxing; interest rates alone would simply drive 
our debt out of control. It is a ticking time bomb, a fiscal ticking 
time bomb that must be addressed.
  While the administration has taken credit for the current reduction 
in our annual deficit, overall debt has increased dramatically under 
President Obama--from $10.6 trillion to almost $18.2 trillion just 
during his term of office. And they brag about making progress? Yes, 
the deficit is smaller than it was in the early years of the Obama 
administration, but it is still a deficit of half a trillion dollars a 
year, and it is going to spike dramatically within 2 years, according 
to the Congressional Budget Office. What a bag of misery turned over to 
the next President.
  In addition, the reduction in our budget deficits is only temporary, 
as I just said, because the conclusion of the Congressional Budget 
Office is that this will spike in 2017 and publicly held debt as a 
percent of GDP will continue to rise in the second half of the coming 
decade. Yet, the CBO's projections of deficits and publicly held debt 
over the next decade does not tell the whole story. The debt will 
continue to climb to unsustainable levels over the next three decades--
30 years of climbing into even more debt. By the end of that time, we 
will owe our creditors more than our entire economy produces in 1 year. 
Let me say that again. At the end of that period--the next three 
decades--we will owe our creditors more than our entire economy is 
worth. What a gift to our children. Thanks a lot.
  Thanks for ignoring doing what you needed to do. You saw it coming. 
You talked about it on the floor of the Senate. Everybody saw what was 
happening, and no one had the will to stand up or too few had the will 
to stand up and do something about it.
  It is reckless policy. It is dangerous. We have an obligation to the 
American people. We have a moral obligation to our future children and 
grandchildren to address this and to act responsibly.
  There have been several bipartisan attempts, both in Congress and by 
outside groups, to address this ticking time bomb. Groups such as Fix 
the Debt, the Business Roundtable, the Domenici-Rivlin effort at the 
Bipartisan Policy Center--all tried to develop solutions and present 
them. They did present them to us, and it is clear for everyone to see. 
Official government efforts were undertaken--Simpson-Bowles, the Gang 
of 6, the supercommittee that resulted from the Budget Control Act, and 
the dinner club of Senators, which I participated in, that met directly 
with the President and his senior advisers. Unfortunately, all of these 
efforts, all of the effort put into this, all of the alarms that were 
ringing--all of this failed to reach agreement.
  I am particularly disappointed with the failure of the final effort, 
which began with Senators and the White House seeking to go big and 
ultimately got to the point where it was hardly worth putting anything 
in place. Even when we took the President's own recommendations and 
sent them to him for approval, they were rejected.
  Despite the inability to reach agreements in the past, we must not 
give up, my colleagues. We must not give up. We must continue to focus 
on this greatest fiscal threat perhaps in the history of our country. 
It is something we have a moral responsibility to tackle, a moral 
responsibility to put our future careers in jeopardy by making the 
right choices. You know what, I think if we did that, the American 
people are wise enough to know now that that would be rewarded rather 
than condemned, that we would receive support for our future interest 
in elected office rather than rejection. The country understands maybe 
more--or at least reacts to maybe more than we in this body do because 
year after year after year we continue to fail to do what we all know 
we need to do.
  Despite the inability to reach agreements in the past, as I said, we 
should not give up. The administration and the Congress must make tough 
fiscal choices now so future generations will have an opportunity to 
reach their potential and not be saddled with an even higher burden of 
debt.
  We must make reforms to our mandatory spending programs to tackle 
out-of-control Federal spending. Congress should also pass sensible 
policies that will help create jobs and grow the economy. This is our 
priority and this is what need to do.
  I will conclude by talking about the Republican budget plan that we 
have begun to debate and will be debating this week and offering 
amendments and ultimately voting by the end of the week.
  We know that job creators and future entrepreneurs see today's large 
debt levels as tomorrow's likely tax hikes, interest rate increases, 
and inflationary pressures. So we must lift the cloud of uncertainty 
that is hanging over our economy. This is the first

[[Page 3941]]

budget we have debated on the Senate floor in 2 years. This is a budget 
plan that is so vital to the future of our economy and the future of 
America. We have lacked such focused direction in the form of a budget 
over the past several years and that has hurt Americans. Americans need 
to know what is coming and what to expect. We need to move off of the 
word ``certainty'' so that business owners, American families, and 
everyone engaged in this economy knows what the rules are, knows what 
is coming, and has a clear picture of where we stand even if there are 
some areas that they are in disagreement with.
  They need to know the Federal Government is carefully managing its 
spending and revenues. Every American family and business must have a 
budget and live within their means, and it is about time Washington 
does the same.
  I am pleased to be here talking about this Republican budget 
resolution that was led by the Senator from Wyoming, and many of us 
participated. I am not on that committee, but I commend them for the 
work they have done in bringing forth a budget for us to talk about, 
debate, amend, pass, and then live by. Certainly no budget is perfect. 
This budget takes several important steps to putting our country back 
on the right fiscal track.
  Most importantly, this budget resolution balances the budget over 10 
years. We must stop spending more than we take in. We must move toward 
a balanced budget. I have long been a proponent of a constitutional 
amendment to require us to do this, as is done in many of our States. 
We have to live up to the responsibilities of our oath to the 
Constitution and to not spend more than we take in. We do that in 
Indiana, and we have a successful economy and a successful legislature 
that has made that the case, but it is severely and sorely lacking here 
in Washington.
  In contrast to the Republican budget, the President's budget does not 
come close to balancing the budget. In fact, for all of the 
administration's praise of the short-term reductions in the annual 
deficit, the President's budget predicts increases in deficits starting 
in 2018--yes, it is going to be dumped in somebody else's lap--and an 
$800 billion deficit in 2025.
  Our Republican budget helps address the issue of underfunding the 
Department of Defense. It boosts defense spending by a necessary amount 
of money above the President's request because, along with the debt 
bomb, we have a terrorist bomb--potentially marrying terrorists with 
weapons of mass destruction--and a strong America and strong military 
are absolutely necessary to address the threats we see burgeoning all 
over the world today. Our budget addresses this specific question and 
strengthens our national defense.
  It helps preserve our safety net programs. It does not change Social 
Security, yet it will benefit Social Security by shoring up our broader 
finances and achieving stronger economic growth and increased 
employment.
  In addition, the budget extends the solvency of the Medicare trust 
fund by calling for the same level of Medicare savings as called for by 
the President. Let me be clear. Our budget does not call for the same 
policies as the President. We would instead achieve these savings 
through policies based on free-market principles.
  The budget also seeks to improve the Medicaid Program by increasing 
State flexibility, and it seeks to help economic growth by promoting 
several progrowth policies, including tax reform, reducing the impact 
of Federal regulations, promoting free trade, investing in 
infrastructure, and enhancing U.S. energy security.
  Finally, the Republican budget provides the means for addressing the 
flawed, confusing, distorted, tax-laden policy of ObamaCare. The repeal 
of ObamaCare provides flexibility to replace this disastrous law with 
health care solutions that bring down the cost of care and protect the 
vulnerable.
  I will conclude by saying and reiterating what this Senate Republican 
budget resolution accomplishes. It balances the budget in 10 years, 
ensures flexibility for funding national defense, provides repeal and 
replacement of ObamaCare, protects Americans from new tax hikes, 
preserves Social Security, extends Medicare trust fund solvency, 
improves Medicaid, supports stronger economic growth, and enhances U.S. 
energy security.
  I am proud my Senate colleagues have drafted a plan to return our 
spending to a sustainable path toward a balanced budget, and I am 
hopeful this is the beginning of responsible action and look forward to 
debating and passing the Republican budget this week.
  Again, I commend the chairman and his committee for bringing forth a 
budget that is sorely needed and will give Americans a clear picture of 
a different path than this administration has proposed.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.


            Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that on Monday, 
March 23, at 5:30 p.m., the Senate proceed to executive session to 
consider the following nomination, Calendar No. 19; that the Senate 
then vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination, the 
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, that 
no further motions be in order, that any statements related to the 
nomination be printed in the Record, the President be immediately 
notified of the Senate's actions, and the Senate then resume 
legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, writing and passing a budget is one of 
the most fundamental responsibilities of any legislative body. 
Unfortunately, it is something we have not done in the U.S. Congress 
since 2009. It is outrageous. It should be considered a scandal.
  Today I will take a few minutes to discuss the budget we have before 
us today and how we intend to discharge our responsibilities to the 
American people in the 114th Congress. Of course, one of the most 
important parts of a budget is that you have to determine what your 
priorities are--things you have to have, things you want but maybe need 
to defer, and things you want but maybe cannot afford.
  When it comes to the budget Chairman Enzi and the Senate Budget 
Committee have produced, our priority is clear. Our priority is to 
protect the hard-working taxpayers of this country. Where do we start 
and how does the Senate Republican budget get America on the right 
track, boosting economic growth and job creation?
  To start with, this budget actually balances and puts us on the path 
so we can begin to pay down our national debt, and it is important to 
say that it does so without raising taxes. Those seem like pretty 
straightforward goals for any budget, but unfortunately that has not 
been the case in recent years.
  Throughout his 6 years in office and in the budgets he has sent to 
Congress, President Obama seems to be committed to the notion that the 
only way Washington can revive strong economic growth is by steadily 
growing the government. Unfortunately, at the same time you end up 
adding to deficits and debt in the process.
  Yes, it is true that we have had an experiment in the size and role 
of government over the last 6 years, and I must say we are no longer 
talking about esoteric theories that were debated in the Federalist 
Papers or during the founding of our country. We now actually have hard 
evidence. We have things we can point to that show this has been a 
failed experiment.
  Under this administration, our national debt--and the bills, not that 
I will have to pay, but these young people and my children will have to 
pay--has gone from $10.6 trillion to more than $18 trillion. I know 
those numbers are almost meaningless to most of us because we simply 
cannot conceive of numbers that big.
  The latest budget from the President adds another trillion in tax 
increases

[[Page 3942]]

and never balances--ever, while, in fact, the budget which was voted 
out of the Budget Committee and is now before us on the floor of the 
Senate actually brings us a surplus, and the President's budget would 
leave our country with a massive deficit of over $800 billion in its 
final year.
  The last budget proposed by our friends across the aisle, Senate 
Democrats in 2013, would have hit the economy with another $1 trillion 
in taxes and added more than $7 trillion to our national debt.
  I believe, based on the failed experiment of the last few years, we 
should conclude that just taxing and spending is not going to allow us 
to achieve the kind of prosperity and economic growth we all so badly 
want. America's debt is a real danger, and one that apparently the 
President chooses to ignore, and our friends across the aisle, in their 
budget proposals, seem to ignore it as well.
  The reason our debt is so dangerous is because it makes us vulnerable 
to fiscal shocks and shocks to our national security and makes it much 
harder for us to respond to them, and our debt obviously costs money to 
service. We need to pay interest to the people who buy our bonds, our 
national debt, and when interest rates go back up from where they are 
now, which is a historically low rate, more and more of the hard-earned 
tax dollars the American people will be paying to the Federal 
Government will be used not to pay down the debt but will be used to 
pay interest on the debt to the people who own it, countries such as 
China and other sovereign entities that purchase that debt. We will be 
paying interest on that debt in a way that makes us dangerously 
vulnerable not only to fiscal shock, but also crowds out our ability to 
deal with other priorities, such as law enforcement, education, 
national security, and the like.
  Last year the Congressional Budget Office pointed out that in the 
past few years debt held by the public will be significantly greater 
relative to the gross domestic product than at any time just after 
World War II. Our debt will be higher relative to our economy than at 
any time since World War II.
  What does that mean to my fellow Texans? The CBO goes on to say that 
with a debt so large, Federal spending on interest payments will 
increase substantially as interest rates rise to more typical levels. 
That is what I was just referring to. The other thing that happens is 
that as the Federal Government's debt goes up, we basically reduce 
national savings and capital stock at the same time and wages will be 
smaller. In other words, our national massive debt is hurting economic 
growth today. It is hurting our economy, and it virtually assures that 
it will get worse in the days ahead.
  The good news is it doesn't have to be that way, and this budget puts 
us on a path to balance and one that begins to pay down the debt, not 
adding to the debt with more taxing and spending along the way. And the 
good news is we don't have to start from scratch and reinvent the 
wheel.
  There are better options, many of which are reflected in the budget 
we have proposed and will be voting on this week. There are policies 
and programs in the budget that we have borrowed which have proven to 
be successful around the country in States such as Texas and others.
  My State, in particular, has experienced an economic surge that has 
seen a boom in job creation and exports and it has been named the best 
State in the Nation in business 10 years running. Some people have 
actually called this the Texas miracle, but I take issue with that 
characterization. There is nothing miraculous about what has happened 
in Texas when we talk about the economy because you cannot explain a 
miracle, but it is no secret why Texas has been one of the leading job 
creation engines over the last several years. If we ask business 
leaders, they will tell us what makes Texas such an attractive place to 
do business.
  In Texas, we know we should not punish job creators with taxes that 
discourage investment and overregulation, which make it hard to make 
the bottom line balance. We are not ashamed of our abundance of natural 
resources, nor are we apologetic about encouraging its development. The 
results have been extraordinary.
  For example, Texas added nearly 460,000 jobs in 2014 alone--460,000 
jobs in 2014--more than any other State. Despite being home to about 
8.5 percent of the total U.S. population, Texas accounted for nearly 
one-third of all new job gains during the last 10 years for the Nation. 
Simply put, what we have shown is what can be accomplished with sound 
public policy that allows for job creation and economic prosperity, and 
that is the good news. It is not a fluke. It is not a miracle. It is 
about good policies actually working to benefit the people of my State 
and that could also be put to work for the American people.
  We can take strategies that have worked in the States and lessons we 
have learned in these laboratories of democracy and apply them here in 
Washington on a greater scale for the benefit of the entire Nation. 
Simply put, it boils down to lower taxes, sensible regulations, and a 
lower level of per capita government spending.
  What happens under those conditions is that the private sector is 
willing to invest, and when they invest, they create jobs and grow the 
economy, and we all benefit, including the government, by increased tax 
revenue. The government doesn't benefit, nor do the people benefit, 
when government policies discourage investment and job creation and 
economic growth, which is what has been happening over the last few 
years.
  In the budget before us, which balances without tax hikes, we can 
protect taxpayers and foster an economic environment that allows jobs 
and opportunity to blossom.
  Gallup released a survey earlier this month that talked about the 
biggest concerns facing the American people. The top concern was 
government. They are concerned about their government. The second was 
the economy, and the third was jobs. All three of those concerns 
actually tie neatly together because many Americans now feel they don't 
have the same opportunities they once had. Maybe they have been laid 
off or had a tough time finding a new job that is as rewarding for them 
personally and financially. Maybe they are actually working as hard as 
they ever did, but they are actually making less money than they did 10 
years ago.
  If people are deeply concerned, as I am, about the availability of 
good jobs and the state of our economy, it only makes sense that people 
would not be satisfied with the government as well. These concerns 
transcend geographic, partisan, and demographic boundaries, and they 
are shared by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike.
  Sadly, one of the statistics that hasn't gotten better over the last 
few years, even though the unemployment rate has crept down, is the 
percentage of the American people--the workforce--who have actually 
left the job market and given up looking for a job, and that remains at 
a near historical high--about a 30-year high--the so-called labor 
participation rate. So when the unemployment rate goes down and we say, 
Oh, that is a good thing, a lot of the reason it is going down is 
because fewer and fewer people are actually looking for work and they 
have dropped out altogether. That is a bad thing.
  Most people don't see themselves as future business owners; they 
simply hope to find a good job doing something that provides them the 
ability to put food on the table and to take care of their families, 
and that gives them a sense of satisfaction for a job well done. Yet, 
as we know, small businesses are the lifeblood of the economy, and it 
is the small businesses that actually help create the jobs that most 
hard-working taxpayers are occupied in. So if we are making it harder 
for small businesses to create jobs, we are also making it harder on 
workers to find jobs.
  As I travel my State and talk to small business men and women, they 
tell me one of the biggest challenges they have had is something the 
President trumpets here in Washington as a grand success; that is, 
ObamaCare because ObamaCare has been a job killer. This budget assumes 
full repeal of

[[Page 3943]]

ObamaCare, and it gives us the opportunity to make good on our promises 
and finally remove one of the biggest roadblocks to job growth. Is that 
because we don't care about health care? Well, no; exactly the 
opposite. What we intend to do as a replacement is to replace ObamaCare 
with affordable health care that provides people access to the kind of 
quality care they want for themselves and their families.
  The irony of ObamaCare is that it spends and taxes so much, and yet 
still 30 million people are uninsured. Many people find the health 
insurance they purchased--even on the exchanges--has high premiums, 
which basically render them uninsured to the extent that they can't 
even afford it, and it has raised their premium costs by adding 
mandates for coverage they don't want and they don't need.
  We can do much better.
  Now, I have heard the President and some of his allies say, Well, we 
have to have ObamaCare because we need to cover young adults up to the 
age of 26 who can be covered under their parents' policy or we need 
ObamaCare because we need to cover people with preexisting conditions. 
The fact is we can do both of those things. We will do both of those 
things, and we don't need everything else that comes with it.
  We also need to capitalize on an energy boom that is taking place 
across the United States. This budget boosts development of American-
made energy. Unfortunately, the President decided to put his party and 
his politics ahead of American job seekers recently when he vetoed a 
bipartisan bill to construct the Keystone XL Pipeline that the State 
Department said would create 42,000 jobs--construction jobs to start 
with--and a number of other jobs thereafter. It would also provide an 
alternative means to transport oil from a friendly ally, Canada, and we 
wouldn't have to ship so much of it in railcars over the surface, which 
is admittedly a much more dangerous and volatile situation.
  The President, when he vetoed the Keystone XL Pipeline, took 
basically the opposite approach to what we have taken in my State and 
other States around the country, where we have seen our natural 
resources and the development of those natural resources as a way to 
grow jobs and grow the economy.
  In Texas, we have produced 94 percent more oil between September 2008 
and September 2012. That has been primarily due to the innovation of 
the oil and gas industry and the so-called shale oil and gas 
revolution, which transformed States such as North Dakota and Texas, 
and in places such as Pennsylvania where the Marcellus shale exists. 
The Eagle Ford, the Barnett, and the Haynesville shale plays in Texas 
have been economic boons in my State and created thousands of jobs and 
added hundreds of thousands of dollars to the tax rolls.
  As my friends along the border of Texas and Mexico remind me, those 
natural resources do not stop at the international border. Indeed, I 
was recently in Mexico City with our colleague, Senator Kaine from 
Virginia, where we met with a number of oil and gas company 
representatives at the American Chamber of Commerce in Mexico City, 
talking about the change in the Mexican law which now will encourage 
private investment in developing their natural resources in Mexico. Of 
course, the better the Mexican economy does, the better our economy 
does, and the fewer people who feel as though they have to immigrate to 
the United States in order to provide for their family.
  This budget is a responsible budget. It balances in 10 years, it 
doesn't raise taxes, and it begins a downpayment on our national debt. 
It sends a very important message that the 114th Congress and the new 
majority are very serious about discharging the most basic 
responsibilities of governance--something that hasn't been done since 
2009, since the last time we had a budget, but we also learn from the 
States when it comes to protecting taxpayers and removing barriers to 
growth and how that helps not only the small businesses but the people 
who work at the jobs created by those small businesses.
  In conclusion, there is one other thing this budget does. We know 
that since the Budget Control Act of 2011 and the sequestration that 
occurred--the automatic caps on spending that occurred as a result of 
the failure of the supercommittee to come up with a grand bargain--our 
Nation has spent less and less on our national security. That has given 
rise not only to deep concerns by many of us, including the Presiding 
Officer, about America's role in the world and the message we are 
sending to our adversaries, but it also raises the question of what is 
the primary purpose--what should be the No. 1 priority of the Federal 
Government? I believe, and I think many of us believe, that national 
security is the most important priority of the Federal Government. We 
have kind of lost sight of that in recent years with the budget caps 
and sequestration. We have tried to be responsible about spending. 
Unfortunately, with an unhelpful partner in the White House, 
sequestration seemed to be the only way we could keep a cap on runaway 
discretionary spending, higher deficits, and greater debt. But I think 
now is the time for this Congress to step up and say that national 
security is our No. 1 priority. This budget does just that, and it 
provides additional resources necessary for the Department of Defense 
to make sure we not only maintain our status as the preeminent military 
power in the world but also keep our commitment to our military 
families and those who have chosen to make the armed services a career.
  We also send a very important message to our adversaries that America 
will not shrink or retreat from its leadership role on the world stage. 
Unfortunately, I think as a result of not only our budgetary decisions 
but also a number of missteps and missed signals by the administration, 
some of our adversaries have gotten the idea we are in retreat and that 
we are somehow pulling back and going to be rendered a spectator rather 
than a leader on the world stage. Perhaps the single most important 
thing this budget does is it says, America is back as the leader of the 
free world and we will not shrink and we will not turn our back on our 
responsibility not only to ourselves and our people but to our friends 
and allies across the world.
  I yield the floor.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANDERS. 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. SANDERS. Madam President, in a moment I am going to yield for 
Senator Kaine, but before I do that, I just want to make a few points 
based on the remarks from my friend, the Senator from Texas, Mr. 
Cornyn.
  When Senator Cornyn talked about military spending--and how much we 
should spend on the military is a very important debate. We now spend 
more money than the next nine countries combined. But as we talk about 
the deficit and the debt, I would remind my colleagues and the American 
people that one of the reasons our national debt is at $18 trillion and 
one of the reasons our deficit is as high as it is is because under 
President Bush, we went to war in Iraq and we went to war in 
Afghanistan, and we put those wars on the credit card. We didn't pay 
for them.
  On Thursday, at the Senate Budget Committee meeting, an amendment was 
passed to add another $38 billion of defense spending to the deficit. 
So I have a little bit of a problem understanding all of my Republican 
friends coming down here and saying: We are really concerned about the 
deficit and the debt. We are going to have to cut back on Head Start. 
We are going to have to cut back on health care. We are going to have 
to cut back on the Meals On Wheels programs for seniors. We are going 
to have to cut back on Pell grants, making it harder for young people 
to go to college. We just can't afford those things anymore because the 
deficit is so high. But, when it comes to military spending, we don't 
have to worry about the deficit at all.

[[Page 3944]]

  I have a real problem with that, and I suspect that within the next 
couple of days there will be an amendment on the floor which makes it 
very clear that if people want to go into another war--and I certainly 
hope we do not go into another war; I think two wars is quite enough--
but if people want to vote for another war, they are going to have to 
pay for that war and not pass that debt on to our kids and our 
grandchildren.
  With that, Madam President, I yield the floor for the Senator from 
Virginia, Mr. Kaine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Thank you, Madam President. I thank my colleague from 
Vermont who has done an able job as the ranking member on the Budget 
Committee.
  I rise today to talk about the budget resolution that we are 
considering on the floor of the Senate this week.
  I came to the Senate in 2013 with a background as a mayor and a 
Governor. I believe in getting budgets done and getting them done on 
time. Doing budgets under regular order is an important priority, and I 
have enjoyed and look forward to more work with colleagues on budgeting 
matters.
  Quickly, we have been in a budget crisis of our own making in 
Congress. It is not someone else's fault. It is not the President's 
fault. The budget crisis we have been in has been of Congress's making. 
In August of 2011, when one House pushed the country to the verge of 
defaulting on our debt for the first time in our history, in order not 
to default we came up with the idea of the sequester. This was before I 
was in the Senate, but the basic idea was this: Let's impose punishing 
across-the-board cuts on all of these Federal spending levels to begin 
in March of 2013 to force us to try to come up with a better deal. I 
call that ``let's try to do something good, and if we don't, then let's 
do something really stupid.'' I don't know that this is a principle you 
should ever apply.
  When I came to the Senate on the verge of sequester going into 
effect, my first floor speech as a Senator and one of my first votes 
was this: OK, we didn't find the budget deal that some wanted, but 
let's not do something stupid. Let's not embrace the sequester and hurt 
priorities that matter to people every day. Sadly, we couldn't get the 
60 votes to cut off the sequester in the Senate. So since March of 
2013, we have been in sequester mode. I said in committee and I will 
say again: The sequester violates every good principle of budgeting I 
have learned as either a public sector budgeter as a mayor and a 
Governor or as a private sector budgeter managing a multinational law 
firm with lawyers on three continents. Nobody would do budgeting this 
way. The United States, because of Congress, is doing budgeting this 
way, and I think we need to come up with a better solution.
  During the last Congress we did find a better solution. It wasn't a 
perfect solution, but the Murray-Ryan budget act did a 2-year budgetary 
framework that eliminated half of these punishing sequester cuts and 
gave a significant lift to the economy.
  The economy has generally been pretty strong, cutting deficits but 
also avoiding some of the mindless austerity that full sequester means.
  A good budget for the country--and I am sad to say that the budget we 
will be debating on the floor this week is not a good budget for the 
country--but a good budget for the country would do a couple of things. 
It would put the promotion of growth and jobs first. The best 
antideficit strategy--if that is what you are interested in--is 
promoting a strong economy, and job growth would be the first priority. 
Second, we would replace a mindless across-the-board sequester with a 
more targeted approach. If we did that, we could credibly reduce 
deficits rather than reducing deficits in a way that hurts the economy 
and punishes programs that matter to people.
  The economy and jobs side, we will grow the economy and grow jobs if 
we do things such as moving away from unnecessary austerity and 
promoting infrastructure. My colleague from Vermont has a strong 
proposal about infrastructure that we debated in committee and we will 
be debating this week. If you did infrastructure and other investments 
in human capital, you could credibly reduce sequester and increase 
jobs. We could also increase jobs if we had a tax code that didn't 
punish work, that didn't punish labor, wages, and salary the way this 
one does.
  The second way would be to restore key spending priorities and 
replace sequester with a targeted approach. We should be focusing on a 
budget that maintains a strong national defense; that keeps our 
promises to veterans; that invests in education, especially important 
programs such as Head Start, pre-K, and college affordability. We can 
protect Federal employees, we can protect programs for people of low 
and moderate incomes, such as SNAP or Pell grants, and we could ensure 
the environment is protected if we followed targeted strategies. That 
would be better.
  Finally, growing the economy and pursuing targeted budget strategies 
would enable us to credibly reduce the deficit. It is important to note 
that the deficit has been coming down since the Murray-Ryan budget deal 
was done, and that is important. But that is not the budget that will 
be on the floor this week.
  Last Thursday we voted a budget out of committee. It was a long day 
of debating and voting. I was able to support a number of amendments, 
and I had some of my own and others that were passed, and I appreciate 
them. But I ultimately voted against the budget, and unless there will 
be dramatic changes on the floor of the Senate, I will, in all 
likelihood, be voting against the budget for the following reasons:
  First, the budget before us proposes cuts to nondefense discretionary 
programs--education, infrastructure, research--the nondefense, 
noninterest, nonentitlement programs that are about 14 to 15 percent of 
the Federal budget. It proposes not just cutting those to full 
sequester levels but cutting them by an additional $236 billion over 10 
years. Even the sequester levels are untenable, slashing these programs 
even further to make college more expensive, to spend less on 
infrastructure, and to spend less on research. It is foolish for the 
Nation.
  The budget proposes $4 trillion in unspecified cuts to programs such 
as Medicare and Medicaid, but it only includes a budget reconciliation 
instruction totaling $2 billion, which leaves a very unusual gap in the 
terms of how we are going to find magically the $4 trillion in cuts. 
The budget depends on gimmicks and sort of magic tricks to achieve 
balance, when we are not really achieving balance.
  It uses outdated baseline proposals by the CBO. We just had CBO 
numbers come in this March from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget 
Office, showing that the country, because of an improving economy, is 
poised to collect more revenue and poised to spend less on some key 
programs. Instead of using that baseline data--the March data--the 
budget we worked on in committee used worse January data to make the 
situation seem more dire than it is. I don't know why we would do this. 
We should use the most updated numbers.
  Finally, I voted against the budget because it contained a critical 
dishonesty. It proposed to do two things simultaneously that violate 
the basic laws of physics. The two measures are this: First we are 
going to entirely repeal the Affordable Care Act. However, all the 
taxes we are collecting from companies and people to pay for the 
Affordable Care Act--we are going to keep all of those in the budget. 
So we will repeal all of the benefits, all of the coverage, all of the 
protection that tens of millions of Americans get under the Affordable 
Care Act, but we will keep taxing people and companies and keep all 
that tax revenue in the budget. Clearly, both of those things are not 
going to happen. So the budget has this air of unreality about it.
  But to me, the unreality of the numbers is even dwarfed in importance 
by just the flat statement that we are going to repeal the Affordable 
Care

[[Page 3945]]

Act. There are many things I can say about the Affordable Care Act. Why 
don't I just pick one? That is that 16.4 million Americans are 
receiving insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act. What does 
this budget say will happen to those 16.4 million Americans? The budget 
doesn't say. It has no plan for providing that they will be able to 
have health insurance.
  Taking away health insurance from 16.4 million Americans, many of 
whom have it for the first time in their lives, is no small issue. That 
number is a big number. Sometimes big numbers just sound like big 
numbers. Let me put it in context. How many Americans are 16.4 million 
people? Well, 16.4 million people with health insurance is the entire 
combined population of Wyoming, the District of Columbia, Vermont, 
North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, 
New Hampshire, Maine, Hawaii, Idaho, Nebraska, and West Virginia. That 
is 14 States and the District of Columbia. The entire combined 
population from birth to death in those 15 jurisdictions is what 16.4 
million American people are. What this budget proposes is to reach in 
and strip away health insurance from every last one of those 16.4 
million people without a proposal, without a plan, without even any 
indication of how we would tackle this problem.
  I refuse to be a part of that. I refuse to contemplate voting for 
that. I have had too much experience with people who don't have health 
insurance to push willingly people back into the shadows when they have 
had health insurance for the first time in their life.
  I know the Presiding Officer understands this. We all do. Health 
insurance is about two things. It is about health, but it is also about 
assurance. So if you are sick, if you are in an accident, if your wife 
is in an accident, if your kids are sick, you have to have this so that 
you can receive health care, so that you can receive treatment. But 
when you are not sick and when you haven't been in an accident, you 
still go to bed worrying about what will happen to your children if 
they get into an accident, what will happen to your wife if she gets 
ill. Even when you are healthy, the absence of health insurance imposes 
an anxiety--especially on parents--that is very, very severe.
  So I will not be part of a budget that tells 16.4 million people--the 
combined population of 14 States and the District of Columbia--that 
while you may have had this health insurance for the first time in your 
life, we are now going to take it away from you without a plan to help 
you have the assurance and the peace of mind and the protection of your 
health that you have under existing law.
  We should not step backward. We should always step forward. Can we 
find improvements? Of course we can. But we shouldn't step backward. 
That is why I voted against the budget in committee, and that is why I 
am likely, absent major change, to vote against it on the floor.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. I thank Senator Kaine for his outstanding work on the 
committee and for his very cogent remarks.
  In the Republican budget, we don't have to talk about protecting 
absurd loopholes for large corporations and for the wealthiest people 
in this country. We don't have to talk about significant cuts in Head 
Start, making it harder for working families to send their kids to that 
very important program. We don't have to talk about cuts in the Pell 
grant program, some $90 billion in mandatory funding, making it harder 
for working families to send their kids to college. We don't have to 
talk about raising taxes on working families by allowing the earned-
income tax credit and the children's tax credit to expire. We don't 
even have to talk about that. All we have to do is to hear what Senator 
Kaine just said.
  Does anybody in America think it makes sense to tell 16 million men, 
women, and children--who today have health insurance, some for the 
first time in their lives--that they are going to lose that health 
insurance, but, by the way, we will continue to collect the taxes from 
the Affordable Care Act?
  Does anyone take that proposal seriously--throwing 16 million people 
off of health insurance, the equivalent of, what was it, the 15 
smallest States in America--and having no plan with what to do with 
these people?
  On the surface, I think the Republican budget makes no sense at all 
and has a very warped sense of priorities in terms of protecting the 
wealthiest people in this country--the largest corporations--but 
sticking it to the middle-class and working families.
  Senator Kaine mentioned that one of the areas that we, in fact, are 
going to focus on is the need to create jobs. I think all of us who are 
not particularly partisan are aware of the fact that the economy today 
is a lot better than it was when President Bush left office and we were 
hemorrhaging 800,000 jobs a month. Is the economy where we would like 
it to be today? I don't think anyone believes that. But have we made 
some significant progress in the last 6, 6\1/2\ years? Yes, I think we 
have.
  But having said that, let's be clear. If you look at the unemployment 
rates, unemployment in this country is not 5\1/2\ percent. Real 
unemployment is close to 11 percent. Youth unemployment, which we never 
talk about at all, is somewhere around 17 percent, and African-American 
youth unemployment is off the charts.
  In addition to that, we have another major problem. That is, our 
infrastructure is crumbling. So what many of us think we should be 
doing is that at a time when our roads, bridges, rail systems, water 
plants, wastewater plants, dams, levees, and airports need a huge 
amount of work, and at a time when real unemployment is much higher 
than it should be--well, what about a commonsense approach which says: 
Let's start rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and let us put 
Americans back to work?
  Do you know what, that is what the American people want. On every 
poll I have seen, the top priority of the American people--Democrats, 
Republicans, Independents--is the economy, create jobs, raise wages, 
and that is what we should be doing.
  In about 1 hour or so I will officially offer an amendment which 
will, in fact, rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and create many 
millions of decent-paying jobs.
  In terms of infrastructure, which is a fancy word for roads, bridges, 
water systems, rail, and so forth, I don't think you have to be a Ph.D. 
in infrastructure to know our infrastructure is really in quite bad 
shape. Every day somebody gets into a car--whether it is in Vermont or 
Washington, DC--and you see that pothole that takes away half of your 
axle, that is what infrastructure is about.
  When you are in a traffic jam because the road is inadequate to deal 
with traffic, that is called infrastructure.
  When your water pipes in your town are bursting and flooding 
downtown, that is called infrastructure.
  The truth is that for too many years Congress has dramatically 
underfunded the maintenance and improvement of the physical 
infrastructure our economy depends upon. That has to change, and that 
is why I will be introducing an amendment to invest $478 billion over 6 
years to modernize our infrastructure.
  How will we pay for that? Will we pay for it by throwing children off 
of Head Start? Will we pay for it by throwing people off of the 
Affordable Care Act? No. We are going to pay for it in the right way, 
and that is to close tax loopholes that allow corporations and 
billionaires to shift their profits to the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, and 
other tax havens. So instead of having these corporations putting their 
money in tax havens--paying zero in Federal income tax--and at a time 
when we are losing about $100 billion a year without reason, we are 
going to ask these corporations to start paying their fair share of 
taxes, and then we are going to use that money to repair our crumbling 
infrastructure and put millions of people back to work.
  This amendment--by the way, I will tell you personally I have 
introduced legislation that is more expansive than this, but because I 
want all of the

[[Page 3946]]

Members of the Senate to be supporting this, I have tailored it down a 
little bit, and we are talking about $478 billion over 6 years. This 
amendment will support more than 9 million good-paying jobs over 6 
years, more than 1.5 million jobs a year. This is money that not only 
creates jobs and rebuilds our infrastructure, it makes the country more 
productive, more efficient, and safer.
  Right now, Larry Summers, the former Treasury Secretary, makes the 
point that if we take into account the impact of depreciation, our net 
investment in infrastructure is actually closer to zero of GDP, zero 
percent. In other words, what we are spending our money on is not 
rebuilding new infrastructure but replacing and patching old 
infrastructure.
  The sad truth is that as a nation we are falling further and further 
behind. Throughout China, multibillion-dollar projects are underway to 
build new bridges, airports, tunnels, an $80 billion water project, and 
high-speed rail lines--in China, not in the United States.
  This past November, China approved nearly $115 billion for 21 
additional major infrastructure projects. While we are debating, while 
we refuse to invest in our crumbling infrastructure, China is doing 
just that--in spades.
  It is no surprise that the World Economic Forum's Global 
Competitiveness Report now ranks our overall infrastructure at 12th in 
the world--12th in the world. That is down from seventh place a decade 
ago. There was once a time when the United States had an infrastructure 
that was the envy of the world. Now we are in 12th place.
  Let's take a look at some of the problems we face and why we need to 
invest in infrastructure.
  One out of every nine bridges in this country is structurally 
deficient, and nearly one-quarter are functionally obsolete. We need to 
rebuild crumbling bridges.
  Almost one-third of our roads are in poor or mediocre condition, and 
nearly 42 percent of all urban highways are congested. We need to 
rebuild crumbling roads.
  Transit systems across the country are struggling to address deferred 
maintenance, even as ridership steadily increases. People want to take 
advantage of transit, to get to work on transit, and yet the transit 
authorities are deferring maintenance because of limited funds.
  Meanwhile, nearly 45 percent of American households lack any 
meaningful access to transit, which is a huge problem in rural areas 
across the country, including the State of Vermont. In Vermont, in most 
cases you have one way to get to work and only one way: That is in your 
automobile.
  The amendment I would be offering also creates a national 
infrastructure bank. This idea, championed in the past by Senators on 
both sides of the aisle, will leverage private capital to finance more 
than $250 billion in transportation, energy, environmental, and 
telecommunications projects.
  My amendment will also greatly expand credit assistance to projects 
of national and regional significance through the TIFIA Program, long 
championed by my good friend from California, Senator Barbara Boxer.
  It will boost funding for the highly competitive TIGER Program that 
funds locally sponsored transportation projects across the country that 
increase economic competitiveness and promote economic innovations.
  But we all know our infrastructure problems are not just limited to 
roads, bridges, and transit. Much of our Nation's rail system is 
obsolete, even though our energy-efficient railroads move more freight 
than ever and Amtrak's ridership has never been higher.
  While we debate the merits of high-speed rail in Congress, countries 
across Europe and Asia have gone ahead and built vast high-speed 
networks. Guess what. They work. High-speed rail trains relieve 
congestion on roads, airports, and whisk people around quickly and 
efficiently.
  China has already 12,000 miles of track with trains that run at least 
125 miles per hour and several thousand miles with trains that can 
travel at 200 miles per hour. Meanwhile, the Acela, Amtrak's fastest 
train, travels at an average speed of just 65 miles per hour.
  This amendment will invest $12 billion to make much-needed 
investments to upgrade our passenger and freight rail lines, and to 
move people and goods more quickly and efficiently.
  It is time for America to catch up with the rest of the world. There 
was once a time when we were No. 1 in infrastructure. Today we are No. 
12.
  I hear my friends on the other side talking about the debt we are 
going to be leaving our kids and our grandchildren, while we are going 
to be leaving them a crumbling infrastructure which at some point 
somebody is going to have to pay for unless we get our act together 
now.
  America's airports are bursting at the seams as the number of 
passengers and cargo grows. The Airports Council International--North 
America says America needs $76 billion over the next 5 years to 
accommodate growth in passengers and cargo activity and to rehabilitate 
existing facilities.
  Moreover, and rather incredibly, our airports still rely on 
antiquated 1960s radar technology because Congress chronically 
underfunds deployment of a new satellite-based air traffic control 
system.
  This amendment will invest $6 billion to improve airports across the 
country. It will invest another $6 billion to bring our air traffic 
control system into the 21st century by accelerating deployment of 
NextGen technology that will make our skies safer and our airports more 
efficient. Anyone, as many of us do, who travels, who flies a lot, 
knows our airports need to be more efficient than they are.
  Bottlenecks at our marine seaports, which handle 95 percent of all 
overseas imports and exports, cause delays that prevent goods from 
getting to their destinations on time. The same is true--perhaps even 
more so--for our inland waterways, which carry the equivalent of 50 
million truck trips of goods each year.
  My amendment will invest an additional $1 billion a year to clear the 
backlog of projects needed to improve inland waterways, coastal 
harbors, and shipping channels. Our businesses simply can't compete in 
the global economy if they can't move their goods and supplies to, 
from, and within our country more efficiently.
  Right now, more than 4,000 of the Nation's 84,000 dams are considered 
deficient--not in need of a few repairs, but deficient--serious 
problems.
  Even worse, one of every 11 levees has been rated as likely to fail 
during a major flood. I will talk a little more about this issue in a 
few minutes as this is something that could concern everyone in the 
Senate.
  My amendment will invest $5 billion a year to repair and improve the 
high hazard dams that provide flood control, drinking water, 
irrigation, hydropower, and recreation across the country, and the 
flood levees that protect our cities and our farms.
  Much of our drinking water infrastructure is nearing the end of its 
useful life. I like to tell the story of Rutland, VT. A few years ago 
that city--one of the largest in Vermont--had water pipes that were 
built before the Civil War--before the Civil War--and I think that is 
not all that uncommon. Cities and towns all over this country, in many 
instances, have pipes that go way, way, way back and are constantly 
breaking and causing serious leaks.
  Each year, there are nearly one-quarter million water main breaks 
with the loss of 7 billion gallons of freshwater. Let me repeat that: 
Each year, there are nearly one-quarter million water main breaks with 
the loss of 7 billion gallons of freshwater. But that is nothing 
compared to the amount of water we lose through leaky pipes and faulty 
meters. In all, the American Water Works Association estimates that we 
lose 2.1 trillion gallons of treated drinking water every year--2.1 
trillion gallons. Clearly, this is an issue that cannot continue to be 
delayed. We have to address that.
  Our wastewater treatment plants aren't in much better shape than our 
freshwater pipes are. Almost 10 billion gallons of raw sewage is dumped 
into our Nation's waterways every year

[[Page 3947]]

when plants fail or pipes burst, often during heavy rains. My amendment 
would invest $2 billion a year so States can improve the drinking water 
systems that provide Americans with clean, safe water.
  The amendment would similarly invest $2 billion a year to improve the 
wastewater and storm water infrastructure that protects water quality 
in our Nation's rivers and lakes.
  America's aging electrical grid consists of a patchwork system of 
interconnected power generation transmission and distribution 
facilities, some of which date back to the early 1900s. Not 
surprisingly, the grid suffers from hundreds of major power failures 
every year, many of which are avoidable. Our grid is simply not up to 
the 21st century challenges it faces, including resiliency to cyber 
attacks. It is no wonder the World Economic Forum ranks our electric 
grid at just 24th in the world, in terms of reliability, just behind 
Barbados.
  My amendment will invest $3 billion a year for power transmission and 
distribution modernization projects to improve the reliability and 
resiliency of our ever more complex electric power grid. This 
investment will also position our grid to accept new sources of locally 
generated renewable energy and will address critical vulnerabilities to 
cyber attacks, an issue of great concern to many of us.
  Another area where we are falling behind is Internet access and 
speed, and this is especially important to rural States such as 
Vermont. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development, the OECD, ranks the United States 16th in the world in 
terms of broadband access--16th in the world in terms of broadband 
success--not something we should be terribly proud of. We are only 
marginally better in terms of average broadband speed--12th in the 
world, according to Akamai's 2014 annual report.
  How can it be that businesses, schools and families in Bucharest, 
Romania, have access to much faster Internet than most of the United 
States of America?
  My amendment will invest $2 billion a year to expand high-speed 
broadband networks in underserved and unserved areas and to boost 
speeds and capacity all across this country. Let us be clear: Internet 
access is no longer a luxury, it is essential for 21st century 
commerce, for education, for telemedicine, and for public safety. We 
cannot continue to lag behind many of our global competitors in terms 
of broadband quality and access.
  That is a brief summary of what my amendment does. It addresses a 
chronic funding shortfall. It addresses the need to start the kinds of 
investments we need to bring our physical infrastructure into the 21st 
century. If $478 billion over 6 years sounds like a lot of money, 
please consider this: The American Society of Civil Engineers--the 
people who actually know the most about the state of America's 
infrastructure--says we need to invest $3.6 trillion by 2020 just to 
get our Nation's infrastructure to a state of good repairs. So this 
amendment is a good start, but that is all it is. It is a good start. 
Much more has to be done.
  Let me conclude by asking my fellow Americans to imagine an America 
where millions of people in our 50 States are hard at work earning good 
wages rebuilding our crumbling bridges, making our roads much better, 
dealing with wastewater plants, dealing with water systems, and dealing 
with our rail system. Think about what America looks like when we 
create an infrastructure that is 21st century.
  Our job right now is to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. As a 
former mayor, I can absolutely assure you infrastructure does not get 
better all by itself. You can't turn around and ignore it and think it 
gets better. Quite the contrary, it gets worse. If you have a bridge 
right now which is in serious disrepair, it does not get better by 
ignoring it. It only gets worse, and in fact it ends up costing more 
money to rebuild it as it deteriorates.
  So we have an opportunity right now. We have an opportunity to make 
our country more efficient, more productive, and safer by creating a 
21st century infrastructure, and at the same time we have an 
opportunity to create millions of decent-paying jobs. In many respects, 
this is a no-brainer. This amendment is paid for by ending outrageous 
corporate loopholes that allow large profitable corporations from 
paying any Federal income tax. So I hope we will have wide bipartisan 
support for this amendment, which, as I understand it, will be voted on 
tomorrow, and I will officially bring it up in about half an hour.
  With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON. 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. NELSON. Madam President, I am going to talk about the fifth 
annual celebration of Congress Week, sponsored by the Association of 
Centers for the Study of Congress. It is a national commemoration which 
coincides with the week in which Congress achieved its first quorums in 
the year 1789.
  Before I do so, let me make a couple of observations on other items 
of business in front of the Senate. First of all, we are about to 
embark on the annual process of adopting a budget. This Senator had the 
privilege as a young Congressman in my first year in the House of being 
assigned to the House Budget Committee. That was not long after the 
whole apparatus of the Budget Committees were set up requiring Congress 
to adopt an annual budget. The original reason for requiring it, and 
requiring a process called reconciliation, was so a majority vote--
instead of what used to be the Senate cutting off debate at two-thirds, 
now it is 60 votes to cut off debate--would be required to pass a 
budget because of the tough decisions that needed to be made in 
lowering a deficit by cutting spending and raising tax revenue.
  But along come the administrations in the early part of the last 
decade, and they reversed the process, using reconciliation not to 
require the hard votes for Senators and House Members in raising tax 
revenue but to do exactly the opposite with a majority vote, instead of 
having to reach the 60-vote threshold to cut off debate in the Senate.
  So as the decade started, after the administration in 2000 
transferred over to the new administration in 2001, with a healthy 
surplus, lo and behold the budget, in the course of the next almost 
decade, went completely out of whack. Instead of revenues being up and 
spending being here on a bar graph--the difference being the surplus of 
more coming in each year--it went in exactly the opposite direction. 
The tax revenues fell off so significantly because of the tax policies 
adopted through that budgetary reconciliation process in about the year 
2001. The tax revenues fell off, the spending increased, and we went to 
huge annual deficits.
  I don't know what the majority is going to try to use reconciliation 
for this time, but this Senator is looking for balance and common sense 
and taking care of the needs that government needs to provide--provide 
for the national security; provide for those who are the least 
fortunate among us; provide for what a society with a big heart like in 
America, reflected by the people who are elected in its representative 
government--to reflect the American people with a big heart and to keep 
our fiscal house in order.
  So as we start this process, I think we ought to be listening to 
Senator Sanders, the ranking member of the Budget Committee. We ought 
to be listening to the members of the Budget Committee. I have served 
on that committee up through this last Congress for 14 years. It is an 
important process, and it can be effective if it is not misused. That 
process was misused when it took us from a position of huge surpluses 
in the 1990s, up through 2000, to exactly the opposite, huge annual 
deficits.

[[Page 3948]]




                            Airport Security

  Madam President, I wish to mention another item I had occasion to be 
involved in over the weekend. If we go back to the latter part of last 
year, there was a 6-month period--if you can believe this--that guns 
were being smuggled onto commercial aircraft flying from Atlanta 
Hartsfield to New York City, where they were then sold on the streets 
in Brooklyn.
  We might say: Well, if this criminal ring is selling guns in a State 
that does not allow the possession of guns--New York--why wouldn't they 
just run them up I-95 in a car or a truck? Because law enforcement was 
on to that. So they devised this ingenious scheme where instead they 
were bringing the guns into the passenger cabin of a commercial 
airliner--not once but over a 6-month period--and hundreds of guns were 
transported right in the passenger cabin.
  Here is how the scheme worked: One perpetrator would go through TSA 
security with an empty knapsack, a backpack. Another perpetrator would 
go through security--because there was not an actual check of whether 
that airport employee at the Atlanta airport in fact had any 
contraband, he could get into the area underneath the aircraft, go up 
into the secure area for passengers, go into the men's room, and 
transfer the guns to the fellow with the empty backpack who had already 
come through security with TSA. They transferred--if you can believe 
it--an AK-47. At the time they finally picked up this fellow in 
December of last year, he had 16 handguns in his backpack.
  Naturally, in our responsibility and as the ranking member of the 
commerce committee, I wanted to get into this. What I found is that 
they weren't doing those secure checks--like we do when we go through 
TSA as a passenger--in the perimeter of the airport for the thousands 
of employees who work at the airport. That is how they got the guns in 
and then did this scheme of transferring the guns. It is a good thing 
the perpetrator was a criminal, not a terrorist, because we can imagine 
what it would be like had he been a terrorist.
  So what are the airports going to do about it? I would suggest they 
ought to take a look at the Orlando airport and also the Miami airport. 
This Senator visited the Orlando airport over the weekend. They took 
hundreds of entry points at the airport for their employees and boiled 
them down to a handful--specifically, 7 entry points for about 6,000 
employees at the Orlando airport. They put up the metal detection 
devices, the conveyer belt that takes backpacks through the machine, 
that looks at their backpacks to see if there is any contraband, et 
cetera. So it was not financially prohibitive when they boiled down the 
number of entry points for their employees to a manageable number. A 
similar thing was done at the Miami airport.
  As a result, it has at first blush the appearance that this is a way 
of solving the problem. Now, sooner or later, if this kind of scheme 
happens in another airport, it is going to be absolutely unacceptable 
and intolerable as to what happened in the Atlanta airport.
  The question is, What about employees losing their badges and 
somebody grabbing the badge and utilizing it? Well, at these screening 
points, they swipe their badge, but the officers in that reduced number 
of entry points for airport employees are checking the badge, looking 
at the picture on the badge and the person with the badge, and then 
having the holder of the badge go over and enter a personal 
identification number--a PIN number--as another safeguard before going 
into the secure area of the airport.
  We are going to have to do this. There is no excuse for what happened 
in Atlanta.


                             Congress Week

  Madam President, now I would like to speak about this great fifth 
annual celebration of Congress Week, and it goes back to when Congress 
first started in 1789, the very first quorums this Congress had. The 
birth of the Congress was not on a single day or an event, but it was a 
process of deliberation in the Federal Government that met in the 
spring and summer of 1787. They hashed out the Constitution, which 
provided for Congress to convene on March 4, 1789. On that date in New 
York City, which was the temporary capital at the time, the first 
meeting place of the Congress, cannons fired and church bells rang to 
announce the birth of the new Congress, but only a few Members of 
Congress had arrived by that date. Weeks passed before the House 
achieved its first quorum on April 1, with the Senate not getting a 
quorum until 5 days later on April 6. The House and Senate met jointly 
on April 6 in the Senate Chamber to count the ballots of the 
Presidential electors.
  So Congress Week's theme, ``The People's Branch,'' reflects and 
emphasizes that Congress is the part of the government designed to be 
closest to the people and the most likely to reflect the sentiment of 
the people--because it is those of us in the Halls of the House and the 
Senate who go back home and are directly reflective and responsible to 
our constituencies.
  We try to keep historical records of all of this. Our congressional 
papers are some of the richest sources for the study of national 
affairs, local history, regional issues, and, of course, for American 
history. They document the legislative branch, and they document the 
history and foreign affairs of the country. It is imperative that we 
manage and preserve our own papers for future historical research and 
study of democracy.
  The Association of Centers for the Study of Congress, founded in 
2003, is an independent, nonpartisan alliance of more than 40 
organizations and institutions that preserve the papers of Members of 
Congress and promote a wide range of programs and research 
opportunities related to Congress. James Madison said that an informed 
citizenry was the best guarantee that this Nation's great experiment in 
representative democracy would work and survive for future generations.
  So I want to call Congress Week to the attention of the Senate and to 
the Nation's public--awareness of the rich and colorful history of 
representative democracy through the institution of the United States 
Congress. I encourage our colleagues to preserve their records and the 
history of the individuals who make up this great institution.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Michigan, Ms. Stabenow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, first I thank the distinguished 
Senator from Vermont for his advocacy, passion, and hard work in laying 
out what this is all about.
  I also appreciate the work of the distinguished chair, even though we 
have disagreements on the budget, because this is really an opportunity 
we have to create a serious budget--a serious budget that gives every 
American a fair shot to work hard and to get ahead and the opportunity 
to strengthen the middle class of our country. But that is not what is 
happening here.
  What America needs is a middle-class budget. Unfortunately, instead, 
what we have is a budget that continues to rig the system on behalf of 
the wealthy and the well-connected. This budget does not close 
corporate tax loopholes or end practices such as inversions that take 
our jobs overseas. It doesn't even address the folks who pack up and 
leave the country and let taxpayers and workers pay the tab for the 
move.
  This budget does not help us address our crumbling infrastructure, 
which is a burden on our workers and a drag on the economy. Frankly, if 
we address that, as our ranking Member has urged, we will create a lot 
of good-paying jobs, millions of middle-class jobs.
  This budget does not invest in a meaningful way in education and 
opportunity for the future, which is the key to equipping our workers 
to excel in the global economy we all face, nor does it help make 
college tuition more affordable or help the millions of Americans who 
are struggling to pay back college loans. Too many young

[[Page 3949]]

people today, too many young professionals come out of college and get 
a job and have loans that are more than a mortgage would be. They can't 
afford to even buy a house as a result of it. This budget needs to 
address that.
  This budget does nothing to address what is happening in terms of 
wages for tens of millions of Americans who are working hard every day 
trying to hold it together. It does not raise the minimum wage, nor 
does it help the millions of working women who are living in poverty. 
By the way, half of the women living in poverty could be lifted out of 
poverty if we really had equal pay for equal work. That is stunning. We 
could address that in this budget resolution.
  This budget does not protect our seniors who have worked hard to earn 
the security that comes from Medicare and Social Security. We are 
talking about a situation where the House, in fact, outrageously is 
suggesting doing away with the Affordable Care Act that has a group of 
exchanges through which insurance companies have to compete to lower 
prices--a whole process of the Affordable Care Act that they want to 
eliminate. At the same time, they are proposing to put the same thing 
in place for Medicare--take away the universal structure of Medicare 
and create a situation that will be unstable and more costly for 
millions of seniors.
  Finally, this budget calls for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, 
but it does some very interesting things. First of all, it would take 
health care coverage, medical care, away from 16.4 million families and 
raise taxes on millions of middle-class families right now. At the same 
time they are taking away medical care, health coverage, they turn 
around and exclude the Affordable Care Act from the process of points 
of order that are in this bill that say if there is a point of order--
there can be a point of order against anything that increases the 
deficit except for the Affordable Care Act. We are going to exclude 
that. Why? Because the Affordable Care Act actually reduces the 
deficit, and they admit it in the resolution because they exclude that 
from points of order.
  So we have a very interesting situation where, on the one hand, this 
budget takes away medical care, health care, extra help with closing 
what is called the doughnut hole for our seniors under medical, all the 
provisions, all the protections for people who already have insurance 
who now can't get dropped if they get sick and if they are sick can get 
insurance even if they have a preexisting condition, all of the folks 
who have their children on their insurance up to age 26, all of the 
other protections--gone under this budget. However, they admit that to 
do that actually increases the deficit, so they exempt the Affordable 
Care Act from that provision.
  On top of that, we are talking about millions of Americans who would 
have increased costs. So people are going to get increased costs, 
increased taxes, increased deficit, and less medical care.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). The Senator has used 5 minutes.
  Ms. STABENOW. I ask if I may have 1 more minute.
  Mr. SANDERS. The Senator may have 2 more minutes.
  Ms. STABENOW. I thank my colleague and leader of the Budget 
Committee.
  We are in this crazy situation where this bill would eliminate health 
care for 16.4 million Americans right now, most of whom have not had 
the ability to find affordable health care. It would raise their cost, 
raise their taxes, raise the deficit, and then at the same time this 
bill keeps the revenue and the cost savings from the Affordable Care 
Act. This is a pretty nifty trick, I have to tell you. So you lose your 
health care, but the revenue that is generated to pay for health 
services stays in the baseline. They are counting the revenue, they are 
counting the cost savings in this budget. They are counting the savings 
and taking away your health care. Not a good deal. I would suggest that 
is a very, very bad deal.
  This is not honest budgeting. It certainly is not a budget that puts 
middle-class families first or those who are working very hard--one 
job, two jobs, three jobs--trying to lift themselves up to get into the 
middle class for themselves and their families.
  It is not just irresponsible budgeting; it is irresponsible governing 
to create a document that hurts so many people in the priorities that 
are set--low-income people, middle-income people, those struggling hard 
and working hard to get into the middle class--but protects the 
interests of privileged Americans. This is a budget rigged for the 
wealthy and well-connected of the country, and I would urge a ``no'' 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. I thank Senator Stabenow not only for her remarks this 
evening but for the great work she has done on the Budget Committee, 
and I certainly concur with the thrust of what she is saying. Our 
middle class is struggling, and the wealthiest people are doing 
phenomenally well. Corporations are enjoying recordbreaking profits. 
CEOs make 270 times more than their average worker.
  We don't need a budget that protects the top one-tenth of 1 percent 
and the CEOs of major corporations. We need a budget that protects 
working families and the middle class. I know that is something Senator 
Stabenow has been fighting for throughout this entire process, and I 
thank the Senator very much for that.


                           Amendment No. 323

 (Purpose: To create millions of middle class jobs by investing in our 
  nation's infrastructure paid for by raising revenue through closing 
        loopholes in the corporate and international tax system)

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 323, which is at 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], for himself and Mr. 
     Wyden, proposes an amendment numbered 323.

  Mr. SANDERS. 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.'')
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me just reiterate what I said a 
moment ago. The wealthiest people in this country are doing 
phenomenally well. Ninety-nine percent of all new income created in 
America today is going to the top 1 percent. Those people are doing 
great. They don't need the help of the Senate. They are doing just 
fine. The top one-tenth of 1 percent own almost as much wealth as the 
bottom 90 percent. Those people are doing extraordinarily well. They do 
not need the help of the Senate.
  The people who do need the help are the working families and the 
middle class of this country, many of whom are working longer hours for 
lower wages. They, in fact, need our help. Seniors who are having to 
make the difficult choice of whether they heat their homes in the 
winter, buy the medicines they need, or buy the food they need, need 
our help. Young people in this country who would love to go to college 
but don't know how they can afford to go to college need our help. 
People graduating college with $50,000, $60,000, $100,000 of debt and 
don't know how to pay off that debt need our help.
  We have to get our priorities right. We have to know whose side we 
are on.
  The amendment I am offering, which I suspect will be voted on 
tomorrow, is very significant in that it addresses two major issues. At 
a time when real unemployment in this country is not 5.5 percent--if we 
count those who have given up looking for work--and I believe the 
Presiding Officer touched on that issue during her remarks--if we count 
those who have given up looking for work or those who are working part 
time when they want to work full time, real unemployment is 11 percent. 
We need to create millions of jobs. Youth unemployment is at 17 
percent. African-American youth unemployment is off the charts. Right 
now, when we talk to people all over this country, they say: Help us. 
Create decent-paying jobs.

[[Page 3950]]

  That is what this amendment does. This amendment creates 9 million 
decent-paying jobs over a 6-year period, and it does it in a very 
sensible way.
  Mr. President, I think you know, I know, and every Member of this 
body knows and virtually every American knows our infrastructure is 
crumbling. Our roads, our bridges, our water systems, our wastewater 
plants, our levies, our dams, our airports, and our rail system are in 
need of significant improvements. We cannot be a first-rate economy 
when we have a third-rate infrastructure. Everybody knows that.
  Let me be very clear. If we don't invest in infrastructure today, it 
is not going to get better all by itself. It will only deteriorate. We 
keep pushing it off, and we keep pushing it off, and the roads get 
worse, the bridges get worse, and the water systems get worse. Now is 
the time to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, and when we do that, 
we will create or maintain some 9 million good-paying jobs. I would 
hope that maybe once around here we can have bipartisan support for a 
piece of legislation that I believe in their hearts every Member of 
this body knows makes sense.
  How are we going to pay for this? We are not going to pay for it by 
cutting Medicare. We are not going the pay for it by cutting Pell 
grants. We are not going to pay for it by cutting Head Start. We are 
not going to pay for it by asking low-income seniors to pay more for 
their prescription drugs. We are going to pay for it by an eminently 
fair way; that is, by undoing huge tax loopholes that enable large, 
profitable corporations in some cases to pay zero in Federal income 
taxes. It is time to end those loopholes. It is time to invest in our 
crumbling infrastructure. It is time to create millions of decent-
paying jobs.
  I would hope very much that we would have strong bipartisan support 
for this amendment.
  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. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, we have now had our first amendment offered, 
one to add more infrastructure. I doubt there is anybody in the 
Chamber--even when we are all here--who would doubt that we need to do 
things with infrastructure. My infrastructure time actually goes back 
to when I was elected mayor of Gillette, WY. It was a boom town. We 
didn't know how big it was going to increase. We knew we were already 
short of sewer, water, electricity, streets, sidewalks, not to mention 
police, garbage, and all the other things that come with it. The 
infrastructure was sorely lacking. In fact, one of the first calls I 
got was from a person who said: What are you going to do when your 
substation blows up? I had to ask what a substation was, and then I 
would have to ask why it would blow up. When it gets to 110 percent of 
capacity--or the first warm day--it ought to blow up. If that happened, 
the consequence of that was the people at Gillette would have been 
without electricity for about 6 weeks. I think in this day and age if a 
company went without electricity for 6 weeks, a person would be tarred 
and feathered. So I understand infrastructure and the need for it.
  The Federal Government never once offered to do any infrastructure 
for me, and we didn't need them to either. But there are things the 
Federal Government has taken the responsibility for and that we need to 
make sure are funded and taken care of and repaired, and I am sure both 
sides of the aisle want to do that.
  The title of this amendment sounds great, but when you get down into 
the details, there are some problems. The budget resolution has a 
deficit-neutral reserve fund for infrastructure and envisions that 
Congress will fully fund transportation priorities to strengthen our 
crumbling infrastructure with a new highway bill in May.
  I have been here long enough to know we always do that. It is not 
very difficult to get the votes together to pass a highway bill. The 
difficulty, of course, is coming up with the money, but there is a 
deficit-neutral reserve fund established to allow the flexibility to 
get that to happen. It provides a mechanism so a bill can move. It 
allows authorizers to find new revenue or offsets to extend the life of 
the highway trust fund.
  The Senate budget resolution strives to maintain a well-functioning 
national transportation system, a core element of the U.S. economy, 
which helps hard-working Americans while reducing lower priority items 
that do not contribute to a national transportation network and should 
be handled in a local way.
  Our Nation's system of roads and bridges has deteriorated and is in 
desperate need of repair. Everyone here is fired up about the issue 
because we have all experienced these infrastructure deficiencies. We 
have seen bridges collapse. We have seen some of the deterioration of 
the roads. We have all been frustrated with traffic, bottlenecks and 
potholes.
  Today, there are more than 1 million miles of roads eligible for 
Federal aid and more than 60,000 bridges are structurally deficient. 
However, the highway trust fund is bankrupt. Each year trust fund 
spending outpaces the revenues from the gas tax by about $14 billion 
and that gap is growing. To compensate for funding shortfalls, the 
trust fund has required large transfers totaling $65 billion since 
2008, $62 billion of which came from the general fund of the Treasury. 
We didn't use to have to do that. Usually the gas tax provided a big 
enough fund that we were able to increase the number of dollars spent 
on infrastructure.
  When the Bowles-Simpson group met, their suggestion was that the gas 
tax--the user fee for cars using the highways--needed to be raised a 
nickel a gallon for each of three consecutive years. Unfortunately, 
that was about 5 years ago, and they predicted the money would run out 
before now if we didn't make that kind of a raise. There have been 
several things that have been proposed, but we never had a vote on any 
of them.
  A one-time cash infusion from a corporate tax increase does not do 
anything to take care of the discrepancy between spending and revenues 
that results in the highway trust fund insolvency. We do need a long-
term highway trust fund solution rather than another short-term fix 
that kicks the can down the road. A corporate tax increase is not a 
long-term solution for the problems of the highway trust fund.
  I have been interested in the international tax piece, and that is 
the part the President hung his hat on for the infrastructure piece. 
The way that works is to mandate a 14-percent tax on all of the money 
that is overseas. I didn't really see any clause in there that allowed 
that to be paid over any kind of a period of time. We didn't need all 
of that revenue right in the first year.
  I did an international tax piece that had a much lower repatriation 
fee on it and it was not mandatory. The difficulty of making it not 
mandatory is it doesn't score so it does not show any money coming back 
because nobody has to bring it back. They have to declare everything 
upfront and agree to pay the tax over a period of 5 years if they were 
going to bring it back. There would be 5 years of revenue from this 
repatriation of funds, even at a lower rate, which could fund what we 
are talking about here, or it could fund the other needs that have to 
be done in tax reform.
  The way the budget is written, that is left up to the individual 
committees to come up with the solutions they need. It is not up to us 
here on the floor doing a budget where we have a mixture of people from 
all of the committees, but not the kind of structure we have in the 
specific committees to come up with the final solution for it. There 
has to be a solution, and I know it can be made, but it can't be done 
so that it bankrupts the companies. If we take the tax that is overseas 
and impose a 14-percent tax on it that has to be paid this year, we 
will bankrupt almost every company that is out there,

[[Page 3951]]

and the reason is they don't just have that money sitting over there; 
it is being used over there. They have to be able to sell off or 
reclaim whatever money they have in order to be able to pay any taxes 
on the money they have overseas. And that needs to be done, because if 
we can find a way for companies to bring their money back to the United 
States, they will invest it in the United States and it will grow the 
economy and we will have more jobs.
  Incidentally, the best way to take care of most of these problems is 
to grow the economy, which is the opposite of what this administration 
is doing. It fascinated me that in the President's budget he said if we 
could grow the economy by just 1 percent, it would result in $4 
trillion in taxes. But everything I saw in there were ways to change 
that back so we didn't grow the economy the 1 percent to raise $4 
trillion.
  I had the Congressional Budget Office look at it, and they said a 1-
percent increase in the economy would raise $3 trillion, so we have a 
small deficit difference, but that is a lot of money any way you look 
at it, whether it is the CBO's estimate or the President's estimate.
  Some of Senator Sanders' tax reform ideas have merit, but it should 
be dealt with within the context of the comprehensive tax reform and 
the highway bill. These tax policies have nothing to do with 
infrastructure and will force transportation spending even further away 
from the user-pays principle we have always had until recently when we 
started tapping some of the other trust funds.
  The U.S. tax code is overly complicated, inefficient, and archaic. I 
think we all agree it needs to be fixed, and I believe Senator Hatch 
and Senator Wyden are on a path to do that. Both have taken a look at 
it very extensively and have been working on it for quite a while. 
Senator Hatch was working on it with Senator Baucus before Senator 
Wyden became the chairman. I think the two of them are still working on 
it, and that is how it needs to be done. It is complicated, it is 
inefficient, it is archaic, it is too big, and it is not fair.
  The current structure hurts economic growth, it frustrates working 
Americans, and it pushes American businesses overseas. Any discussion 
of international or corporate tax reform should be dealt with in the 
context of a comprehensive tax reform to simplify the entire system. We 
should not drag tax reform into the highway funding debate. One of the 
tendencies we have around here is to come up with some very simple 
solutions that, as a solution, sound like a really good idea, but when 
we get into the details, there are a whole bunch of complexities that 
result in unintended consequences that can foul up the whole system, 
and that is one of the things that something as complex as our tax 
system can do if we try to write that as a budget resolution.
  The budget resolution assumes the tax-writing committees will adopt a 
tax reform proposal that reduces marginal rates but broadens the tax 
base to create a fairer, efficient, competitive, progrowth tax regime 
that is revenue neutral, and I look forward to their work. I am on that 
committee so I will get to be a part of that work. One of the areas I 
am particularly interested in is, of course, small business.
  I was in small business for a long time. My wife and I had shoe 
stores. If you have a small business corporation, you pay the taxes on 
the money you make in that given year, even though you still need to 
keep it invested in the business if you are going to keep the business 
going. Those are called the passthrough businesses, so we have to be 
careful that when we fix the corporate tax structure, we don't ruin the 
small business tax structure at the same time. That is a major 
complication, but when you get into the details of that, it gets even 
more complicated.
  I am hoping we do both corporate and individual at the same time. I 
have listened to Senator Sanders talk about and mention a number of 
corporations that didn't pay taxes and even got some money back, and my 
first reaction to that is that is terrible; it should not happen in 
America. But after I looked at it, I thought if they had really 
violated the law, they would be in jail. They didn't violate the law. 
They used the tax laws we have now, which shows why we need to have tax 
reform.
  I am in favor of tax reform and eliminating loopholes. I had an 
opportunity to look at a number of the tax expenditures. I know some of 
the businesses that were listed as tax expenditures actually wound up 
getting a different name for the same thing they get to write off that 
every other business gets to write off, and so we have to be careful 
that when we eliminate those that we are not moving into another 
category because one of the tax breaks I looked at, if we eliminated 
it, it would allow them to write their expenses off much faster than 
how they agreed to write them off. So it is more complicated than it 
seems on the surface.
  I am hoping we can eliminate some of that complication and eliminate 
some of those loopholes. I hope we can use some of the money for 
infrastructure and the rest for the simplification and fairness of it. 
Fairness is very important, and that is why we have the committee 
structures the way we do too so we can have people looking at the 
issues from both sides to make sure there is fairness in the eyes of as 
many people as possible. When we start tinkering with the tax code in 
very small ways, that is how we wind up with these unfairness issues 
that appear in there. Helping out one sector can sometimes be adverse 
to another sector, but we don't realize it until the actual action 
takes place.
  I am looking forward to the debate on infrastructure. It is my 
understanding we will vote on that sometime tomorrow around noon and 
that gives us an opportunity to have more debate on it.
  In the meantime, I think we can probably come up with some 
commonsense solutions that could be worked through the committee, which 
was what was always envisioned in our budget.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________