[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 4353-4358]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2016

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. Con. Res. 11, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  Pending:

       Cotton amendment No. 481, to establish a deficit-neutral 
     fund relating to supporting Israel.
       Enzi (for Kirk) amendment No. 545, to establish a deficit-
     neutral reserve fund relating to reimposing waived sanctions 
     and imposing new sanctions against Iran for violations of the 
     Joint Plan of Action or a comprehensive nuclear agreement.
       Rounds/Inhofe amendment No. 412, to establish a deficit-
     neutral reserve fund to prevent the Environmental Protection 
     Agency and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service from 
     engaging in closed-door settlement agreements that ignore 
     impacted States and counties.
       Rubio modified amendment No. 423, to increase new budget 
     authority fiscal years 2016 and 2017 and modify outlays for 
     fiscal years 2016 through 2022 for National Defense (budget 
     function 050).
       Daines amendment No. 388, to establish a deficit-neutral 
     reserve fund relating to the designation of national 
     monuments.
       Daines amendment No. 389, to establish a deficit-neutral 
     reserve fund relating to holding Members of the Senate and 
     the House of Representatives accountable for failing to pass 
     a balanced budget.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 10:30 
a.m. will be equally divided and controlled by the two managers or 
their designees.
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, first of all, I wish to thank Chairman Enzi 
for his courtesy in allowing me to take a few minutes to discuss a 
bipartisan amendment I will be offering on this bill. It deals with 
what I think is going to be an enormous challenge this summer for the 
West, and that is dealing with this wildfire challenge and the prospect 
that we could literally have enormous fires--what could be virtually 
infernos--throughout the West this summer.
  I make that judgment because recently when I was home, I got a 
briefing. For example, in Medford, OR, they told me it was the driest 
it had been for 25 years. In Medford, when you get an update on the 
fires--and, colleagues, it is worth noting that nobody used to have a 
fire briefing in March. That is just unheard of. We have fire briefings 
well into the summer. But fires are getting to be a year-round 
occurrence. I was there in March, and the fire experts said it is going 
to be very dry. When you look southward to California, all you see is 
dry, dry, dry.
  The fact is that as it gets drier and as it gets hotter on the forest 
floor, should lightning strike, which is very common in rural America, 
all of a sudden you can have an inferno on your hands and one that 
really knows no boundaries and can affect private property owners, 
State lands, and Federal lands. We had an important hearing in the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee the other day on the sportsmen's 
bill. It looked as if there were a lot of good ideas in the bipartisan 
bill, but it will be pretty hard to go hunting and fishing in the 
forests this summer if the forests are burning up.
  So what a bipartisan group of us from the West want to do--and I 
particularly commend our colleague Senator Crapo of Idaho. He and I 
have teamed up on this effort. We have a large bipartisan coalition of 
Senators who have joined us. We want to fix the broken system of 
fighting wildfire in America.
  What happens today, colleagues, is that the accounts for prevention 
get short shrift. In effect, the work that needs to be done with the 
smaller trees and thinning out the underbrush doesn't get the funding 
that is needed, so what happens is, as a result of the lack of 
prevention, you have these bigger fires and you have to put them out. 
The accounts for dealing with fire suppression are also short of money, 
so what happens at that point is the agencies borrow from the 
prevention fund to put the fire out, and the problem just gets worse 
and worse.
  So what Senator Crapo and I, with, as I have indicated, a large 
bipartisan coalition of Senators, are seeking to do is to end that kind 
of fire borrowing. What we are proposing is that the biggest fires--
perhaps the 1 percent of the fires that really turn into infernos--you 
would fight those from the disaster fund because they are, in fact, 
disasters.
  We have received an analysis from the budget officials indicating 
that this would really be a wash from a budgeting standpoint because, 
in effect, while you do spend a bit of money from the disaster fund 
putting out these infernos, you also generate some real savings from 
the prevention fund by not having as many fires in the first place.
  What our bipartisan amendment will do is give the Departments of 
Agriculture and Interior the opportunity to access the disaster fund 
for that 1 percent of the fires that can really break a community 
apart. It seems to me that Americans across the country who live in 
communities where there are these fires deserve to know their homes and 
lives are not going to be threatened needlessly. That is what we will 
be able to prevent with this bipartisan amendment.
  Freeing up the Forest Service funds that our proposal will do will 
ensure that the natural resources agencies have the resources they need 
to improve forest health and fund the very preventive work that is 
needed to reduce the size and severity of future fires.
  We are going to be joined in this amendment. As I have indicated, 
Senator Crapo and I base it on our bipartisan bill. Senators Stabenow 
and Baldwin will be cosponsors, and I believe others will as well.
  It is an important amendment and it is an urgent amendment because we 
need to have this in place quickly so as to give the natural resources 
agencies and our communities the tools they need this summer.
  It is a real wake-up call when you get a fire briefing in March. That 
is an indication that we have a very, very difficult fire season coming 
up. This bipartisan amendment ensures that in a cost-effective way we 
give our natural resources agencies the tools they need to fight these 
infernos and protect our communities.
  Once again, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee, 
Senator Enzi, for giving me this time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his 
comments.
  One of the things that has concerned me since I came to the Senate is 
the fact that, in my first year alone, I believe we spent about $3 
billion in disaster relief. Subsequently, it increased to $5 billion 
for disasters per year, and now it is about $7 billion in disasters a 
year. As an accountant, one of the things I have always said is, if you 
know something is going to happen, you ought to put it in the budget. 
So now you will find that there is $7 billion in disaster relief 
funding for each of the 10 years in this budget. Using these funds for 
fires and major disasters sounds like a good idea to me.
  I am a little bit rankled when I hear somebody say this budget is a 
farce. It is as good an effort as a person can put together in 6 weeks 
when there hasn't been one for 8 years. That effort involves a lot of 
research, going back to find out where the problems were, why it wasn't 
done, and what needed to be done. I am pleased with the budget.

[[Page 4354]]

But, of course, the reason we have this process--in which we had the 
committee mark-up last week and considered a number of amendments and 
now will consider many more amendments here on the floor--is so that 
everybody can participate in seeing if we can complete the budget. It 
won't be perfect when we finish, but it will be better than it is right 
now, and it will be better when we start tomorrow morning.
  Before we continue consideration of our balanced budget resolution 
today, I think it is worthwhile to reflect on what we accomplished 
yesterday for America's hard-working families. It was a good day 
yesterday as we approved amendments to prevent workplace retaliation 
against employees who ask or talk about salaries; to oppose cuts to 
Medicaid; to coordinate care for medically complex children with 
multiple serious, rare, or chronic illnesses; and to help our veterans 
gain timely access to health care. As Senator Ayotte said yesterday, 
her amendment would ``ensure veterans don't have to wait in line, that 
they can exercise private care options when they want to.'' I am proud 
to say that is something we all support.
  The debate this week is a unique opportunity for hard-working 
taxpayers to see an open and transparent legislative process, with 
Members from both sides of the aisle offering, debating, and voting on 
amendments to this resolution. This is something we haven't had in the 
past 8 years, and I think Members are energized to be able to do what 
they were sent here to do--the people's business.
  Among the topics we will consider today are: enhancing America's 
energy security, protecting personal property rights from such agencies 
as the EPA, defending taxpayers against efforts to impose a carbon tax, 
helping veterans get better access to VA medical facilities, 
simplifying student loan repayment options, and saving Medicare.
  I again thank Members for offering amendments that will help make our 
government more efficient, effective, and accountable to America's 
hard-working taxpayers. It is what the American people want and 
deserve.
  I look forward to a strong and vigorous debate about our policies 
today.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                           Amendment No. 347

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and that I be allowed to call up my amendment 
No. 347 and that the amendment be made pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Barrasso], for himself, Mr. 
     Sullivan, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Wicker, Mrs. Capito, 
     Mr. Boozman, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Coats, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Vitter, 
     Mr. Isakson, and Mr. Moran, proposes an amendment numbered 
     347.

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

  (Purpose: To establish a spending-neutral reserve fund to keep the 
  Federal Water Pollution Control Act focused on protection of water 
  quality, to establish bright lines for Federal jurisdiction, and to 
     create clear and unambiguous exemptions for features that the 
 Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency or the Secretary 
of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, claim they are not 
                          seeking to regulate)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. SPENDING-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO KEEPING 
                   THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT FOCUSED 
                   ON THE PROTECTION OF WATER QUALITY.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports 
     relating to ensuring that Federal jurisdiction under the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) 
     is focused on water quality, which may include limiting 
     jurisdiction based on the movement of birds, mammals, or 
     insects through the air or over the land, the movement of 
     water through the ground, or the movement of rainwater or 
     snowmelt over the land, or limiting jurisdiction over 
     puddles, isolated ponds, roadside ditches, irrigation 
     ditches, stormwater systems, wastewater systems, or water 
     delivery, reuse, or reclamation systems, by the amounts 
     provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided 
     that such legislation would not raise new revenue and would 
     not increase the deficit over either the period of the total 
     of fiscal years 2016 through 2020 or the period of the total 
     of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, this amendment that was just called up 
and made pending deals with the regulations the Obama administration 
has proposed that would expand the Clean Water Act. The rule is an 
attempt to change the definition of what the law calls waters of the 
United States.
  The Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers 
first proposed the rule last year. They expect to have it finalized in 
the next few months. Well, under this rule, the definition of ``waters 
of the United States'' would include ditches, would include dry areas 
where water flows only for a short period of time after it rains.
  Federal regulations have never before listed ditches and other 
manmade features as ``waters of the United States.'' This would be an 
alarming step. It would have a huge impact on farmers, ranchers, 
families, and small businesses all across America. People whose 
livelihood requires that they put a shovel in the ground would suddenly 
find it much more difficult to make a living. The rule would amount to 
a tax on family farmers and ranchers to use their own land after it 
rains. These are people who just want to grow crops, raise cattle, take 
care of their families, maybe even just enjoy their own backyards. I 
hear this every weekend at home in Wyoming. I heard about it today from 
students from Lusk, WY, in Niobrara County. Now, Washington bureaucrats 
would have a say in how all of these people use their property.
  I oppose this rule. I would like to see it scrapped entirely. That is 
why last year I introduced the Protecting Water and Property Rights Act 
of 2014 to block the rule, to roll back this dangerous Washington 
overreach.
  My bill had 38 cosponsors in the Senate, Members who heard from their 
constituents back home about how worried they were about this harmful 
new rule. We heard from business owners, who told us the uncertainty 
the rule creates only delays economic investment and delays job 
creation. Well, the Environmental Protection Agency says our concerns 
are overblown. The administration says there is a lot of 
misunderstanding about what this regulation covers.
  Gina McCarthy, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency, gave a speech last week. She said, ``We're not interested in 
the vast majority of ditches--roadside ditches, irrigation ditches--
those were never covered.'' She also went on to say that the Agency 
could have been, as she said, ``more crystal clear out of the gate 
about what we were and were not proposing.''
  Well, my amendment would help make sure this rule is crystal clear. 
It simply lists things that the Environmental Protection Agency 
Administrator and others in the Obama administration have already said 
would not be regulated under this proposed rule. That is it.
  My amendment would put limits on how the Environmental Protection 
Agency or the Army Corps of Engineers determines the extent of 
Washington control. The limits would include not allowing the agencies 
to control water based on the movement of birds, mammals, or insects.
  The amendment would prevent determinations based upon the movement of 
water through the ground or the movement of rainwater or snowmelt over 
the land.
  Finally, my amendment would specifically say that Federal 
jurisdiction under the Water Pollution Control Act does not extend to 
things such as puddles, isolated ponds, roadside ditches, and 
wastewater systems. The Obama administration has said it does not 
intend for its rules to cover any of these

[[Page 4355]]

features. Well, this amendment spells it out. There will be no more 
room for uncertainty and no more room for misunderstandings. It will 
then be crystal clear.
  Of course, some people may not want the rule to be crystal clear. 
They may want to have some uncertainty in the rule. They may want to 
have unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats in Washington to be able to 
change their minds and then go back on their word--as we have seen them 
do in the past--about what the regulation covers and what it does not. 
If there is a Senator here who favors that kind of uncertainty, then 
they can vote against my amendment.
  As I said, I have been opposed to this rule from the very beginning. 
This amendment does not block the rule, and it does nothing to prohibit 
the Environmental Protection Agency or the Army Corps of Engineers from 
regulating the true waters of the United States. It simply takes the 
administration at their word. If they say the rule is not meant to 
cover something, this just spells it out.
  I urge Senators to vote in favor of this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, before I begin my remarks, will the Chair 
notify me when I have used 5 minutes of time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be so notified.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the budget 
resolution offered by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. 
This budget charts the wrong path for our Nation. It does not spur 
economic growth or help the middle class because it does not focus on 
creating high-quality jobs, boosting wages, or reducing inequality. It 
fails to address the cuts to government investments, which threatens 
our Nation's economic and national security. Instead, this budget 
stacks the deck against middle-class families by slashing government 
investments. It stacks the deck in favor of special interests by paving 
the way for huge tax giveaways to powerful special interests and the 
wealthiest Americans.
  In order to claim the budget will balance in 10 years, it relies on 
accounting gimmicks and $5.8 trillion in draconian cuts. It kicks 
millions off the health insurance rolls and dismantles health care 
reform. But, ironically, it takes credit for the savings that are part 
and parcel of the Affordable Care Act, all the while setting the stage 
for massive tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.
  It would also put powerful special interests ahead of seniors by 
forcing Medicare recipients to pay more for prescription drugs and 
preventive care. It does not provide adequate safeguards for Social 
Security and Medicare. By saying no to closing egregious tax loopholes, 
it only increases the pressure to cut programs for seniors and others.
  You know, frankly, we have been talking for years here in Washington 
about the deficit. But, this budget proposed by my colleagues has a 
credibility deficit. So I think most of the observers and commentators 
are looking and saying: Well, that is impossible. No one is going to 
believe that you can repeal the Affordable Care Act but keep the 
savings. No one is going to believe you can do all of those things and 
still continue to keep a straight face.
  So I think the credibility of the budget is highly questionable.
  We should have engaged in a balanced approach to growing our economy 
and towards fiscal responsibility. A balanced approach requires not 
only making wise reductions in spending, but it also requires raising 
revenue. That is the way most government entities operate. Mayors and 
Governors have to do it, and they do it, but here, we are avoiding very 
difficult, tough choices.
  It is obvious there are things that have to be done. They cannot be 
wished away. Look at our crumbling infrastructure. As I drive around 
Rhode Island and the Northeast after a series of storms, I see the 
worst highway situation I think I recall in perhaps my lifetime, but at 
least in a long time. Potholes and disruptions are all over our roads. 
Americans expect it will be fixed, but you cannot fix it simply by 
wishing, you have to have the resources and the investment to make 
those corrections.
  As we go forward, it is important to go ahead and deal with all of 
these issues in a balanced way--not through creative accounting 
techniques but by making difficult choices. Programs that are not 
working should be cut back. Revenue should be provided for investment 
in this country. That is what I think we should and we must do.
  I have been particularly active with my colleague Senator McCain on 
the Armed Services Committee because the Defense Department is facing 
serious financial challenges. All of our service sectors have warned 
that if sequestration remains in place, if the Budget Control Act 
remains in place, together they will not provide the resources 
necessary to adequately fund the readiness, the modernization of our 
forces and the welfare of our forces.
  Admiral Gortney, for example, who is the commander of NORTHCOM, has 
made this point along with everyone else, but he also went further to 
make the point that I think is critical when we are talking about 
defense and nondefense spending. You cannot draw this bright line 
between the Department of Defense and everybody else in terms of our 
national security. NORTHCOM, which is responsible for our security in 
the United States, depends upon border control agents at our border. 
They depend upon the Department of Homeland Security. If that agency is 
not adequately funded, if they are suffering through sequestration and 
the BCA levels, then we will not have the kind of national security we 
need. If it translates to further cuts in TSA agents at our airports, 
that will undermine our security.
  So this notion that we can draw a nice neat line between the 
Department of Defense and give them some more money through different 
techniques but ignore the other side of the equation does not work.
  One of the most significant examples comes from General John Kelly of 
Southern Command. They have the capability of, through satellite 
imagery, through other intelligence means, identifying these fast boats 
coming out of South America that have drugs and might have human cargo, 
possibly terrorists. Knowing where they are and where they are headed 
is fine, but unless you have Coast Guard cutters to intercept them, you 
will not interdict this traffic. As a result, what we will have is a 
hole in our national security. The Coast Guard cutters come from the 
Department of Homeland Security.
  So I know there has been an effort to use the Overseas Contingency 
Operation Fund. Senator Graham, in particular, has been very, very 
aggressive with that. But I will try to explain later, if not now: 
There are limitations. This fund is directed at our operations against 
Al Qaeda and the Taliban under the authorization for the use of 
military force. To try to stretch this to build facilities in Alaska 
for missile defense--that is quite a stretch. That is not what OCO was 
designed for.
  I think it has become a valiant effort to put more money in, but the 
reality is, we have to face up, as Senator McCain and I suggested in 
our letter to the Budget Committee, and raise the baseline number for 
the Department of Defense to a total--at least to a total that avoids 
sequestration or beyond. That is a realistic way to do it, and revenue 
is a way to pay for it. And I don't think the cuts should come out of 
nondefense to fund defense. This is an issue--again, are you going to 
shortchange Homeland Security? Are you going to shortchange other 
agencies that are critical to the defense of the United States? Are you 
going to shortchange the people of the United States? I do not think we 
should.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is amendment No. 347.

[[Page 4356]]




                           Amendment No. 622

  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside in order for me to call up amendment No. 622.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Burr], for himself, 
     Mr. King, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Warner, Mrs. Shaheen, and Ms. 
     Ayotte, proposes an amendment numbered 622.

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

   (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to 
           manageable Federal student loan repayment options)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO A 
                   SIMPLIFIED INCOME-DRIVEN STUDENT LOAN REPAYMENT 
                   OPTION.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports 
     relating to addressing student loan debt, which may include 
     reducing overlapping student loan repayment programs and 
     creating a simplified income-driven student loan repayment 
     option by the amounts provided in such legislation for those 
     purposes, provided that such legislation would not increase 
     the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal 
     years 2016 through 2020 or the period of the total of fiscal 
     years 2016 through 2025.

  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a deficit-neutral 
reserve fund amendment to the budget that will allow the chairman of 
the Budget Committee to revise allocations to provide for a simplified 
income-driven repayment program for Federal student loans.
  This budget amendment is offered with the hope that it would allow 
for legislation similar to the Repay Act, which I introduced earlier in 
this Congress with Senator King, Senator Alexander, Senator Warner, 
Senator Shaheen, Senator Ayotte, Senator Rubio, Senator Capito, Senator 
Collins, and Senator Carper.
  I wish to spend a moment telling my colleagues what the Repay Act 
would do.
  It is very simple. It would streamline the numerous loan repayment 
programs into two easily understood options for those who take out 
student loans.
  No. 1, it would create a fixed repayment program similar to the 
current law's 10-year standard repayment.
  No. 2, it would create a new simplified income-driven repayment 
program that consolidates numerous income-based programs into one 
program.
  As we know today, students who go to college have to take out a 
number of different loans. It is confusing in the system to know 
exactly what that repayment system looks like--especially for somebody 
who is trying to determine their job opportunities and the income they 
need to meet their debt. This allows consolidation and simplification 
so that if students understand exactly what their exposure is almost 
from the very beginning, they would be left with a simple set of 
choices upon graduation. Do I choose a fixed payment plan that would 
pay off my loans in a straight 10 years? Or do I take the simplified 
income-driven repayment plan, pay a little longer, and have the 
remaining loan balance forgiven after 20 or 25 years, depending upon 
whether it is undergraduate or graduate loans?
  Now, this is important for a few reasons, which I will illustrate 
from the quotes that have been made by many associations and financial 
aid administrators who endorsed the Repay Act.
  They say, No. 1: ``Consolidating the various federal income-based 
programs into a single plan will help borrowers understand the benefits 
and protections inherent in our federal student loan system . . .''
  No. 2:

       Despite many protections in [existing] repayment plans, a 
     frustrating number of student loan borrowers continue to 
     default. This is due in part to the fact that the options 
     require borrowers to take proactive and cumbersome steps to 
     enroll.

  And, No. 3: ``This proposal to collapse the different plans into one 
single income-based repayment plan should help ease the enrollment 
process for borrowers.''
  Not only does it sort out the repayment obligations that a student 
has, it makes the enrollment easier. And this comes from the 
individuals who are responsible for the implementation of these 
programs.
  Those quotes are from associations representing financial aid 
administrators across the country. They are people who are on the 
frontlines of helping students as they prepare for payment after 
college. We should listen to them, and I say that strongly to my 
colleagues. We should listen to them.
  The other benefits of this legislation is that students will know, 
prior to entering college, based on the amount that they borrow, what 
options will be available to them once they graduate from college. I 
know that seems like common sense to a lot of folks, but if you haven't 
been through the student loan process today, then you don't realize 
they don't have that clarity today--as they enter college--that this 
will allow them to have.
  This will promote better consumer behavior. It will lessen the chance 
students default based upon the confusion of the viable options that 
they have available to them.
  Now, I would think, from policymakers, our intent would always be, 
No. 1: Does the plan fit the need of the individuals to whom it is 
targeted? Clearly the student loan program does, but, No. 2: Have we 
done this in a way that is simple, understandable, and workable?
  If we can't answer that question, and we don't check that box, the 
likelihood is that the net result is that we have defaults, individuals 
who don't live up to repaying their obligation. When a student 
graduates, they face up to 12 repayment options available to them, all 
with some overlapping purpose or benefit and with great complexity in 
how you actually sign up for the options.
  Again, with the Repay Act, there are two options: 10 years straight 
repayment or a repayment that is structured based on what your income 
is.
  Senator King and I think the Repay Act makes for good policy, but we 
think it makes for bad policy to have 12 cumbersome options that 
overlap in some cases.
  Based on some preliminary scores from CBO and estimates from 
President Obama--since he has proposed much of what we do in the Repay 
Act--we believe this legislation will save in the area of $4 billion 
over the next 10 years and $1 billion to $2 billion over the next 5 
years. That is up to $6 billion in savings in the student loan program 
that we could pump back into additional loan value for students in the 
future.
  Now, unlike other options we have, which we will be voting on today, 
that cost money--and pay for it by raising taxes--we save money by 
making our program more efficient and better suited for students' 
needs.
  I say this to my colleagues who might be asking: How do I vote? I 
have to tell you: You have to wait to have a comparison bill. There 
will be one.
  I want you to ask yourselves: Which one saves $4 billion, and which 
one costs more money? Which one uses the allocations that are currently 
there, and which one raises taxes to put in place a new plan?
  This amendment and the Repay Act is bipartisan--overwhelmingly so. If 
the bipartisan list of cosponsors to the Repay Act isn't enough, many 
of the recommendations that are formed in this legislation came from 
the President's very own budget.
  This legislation also has the support of the Education Finance 
Council, the American Council on Education, the National Association of 
Student Financial Aid Administrators, as well as the University of 
North Carolina System, which is important to me, since I represent 
North Carolina.
  In short, this amendment represents legislation that, No. 1, is 
bipartisan;

[[Page 4357]]

No. 2, saves money; No. 3, is based on the ideas and proposals of the 
President; and, No. 4, has the support of the financial aid industry, 
which is responsible for the success of student loan programs.
  Success means easy enrollment. Success means repayment of the 
outstanding debt.
  I urge my colleagues, when given the opportunity, to vote for 
Amendment No. 622, a bipartisan-sponsored initiative.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to notify me when 6 minutes 
are consumed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be so notified.
  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, last week the Senate Budget Committee gave 
a green light to the Republican budget. A caution light, a yellow 
light, was more in order. It calls for $4.7 trillion in nondefense 
spending cuts over the next 10 years and no increases in revenue. Where 
would those cuts come from? They would be piled on the backs of the 
middle class, the elderly, and children.
  They would cut the earned-income tax credit, slash Medicare and 
Medicaid, child care, Head Start, education, public safety, and law 
enforcement.
  And--just for good measure--the Republican budget rolls back reforms 
on Wall Street--and on and on. All this and more is to pay for lower 
taxes for millionaires and billionaires.
  When I first came to the Senate, our economy was in a free fall. We 
were losing 20,000 jobs a day, every day. Thousands of jobs were gone. 
Our financial system was crashing. Deficits were at historic highs.
  That was 6 years ago. It has been a long road back. We asked the 
wealthy to pay their fair share. We passed long-needed reforms to Wall 
Street. We have seen 12 million more private sector jobs, the deficit 
cut in half, and Wall Street at historic highs. Profits are up; 
unemployment and deficits are down.
  That is the story, but it isn't over. We are not done yet. Not 
everyone has found solid ground.
  My State still faces great challenges. Many New Mexicans are still 
struggling, still pulling out of the worst recession in 75 years. How 
do we go forward? How do we build on the progress we have made?
  Those are the questions the voters elected us to solve. The short 
answer is we have to work together. We have to get past the shutdowns 
and the showdowns. Politics is the art of standing your ground but also 
finding common ground.
  That is why the Republican budget is so troubling. It doesn't start a 
conversation. It doesn't reach across the aisle.
  This budget is bad for working families, bad for the middle class, 
bad for our economy. It makes a U-turn right back to failed policies of 
the past. This budget says no to the middle class, no to the most 
vulnerable, and no to the critical investments we know we need--but yes 
to lower taxes for hedge funds. It is Robin Hood in reverse, and it 
will hurt so many people who have suffered so much for so long.
  This is the wrong way to go at the worst possible time, because--make 
no mistake about it--this budget is one big yes for those at the top 
and one big no for everybody else.
  In my State, one in three children is in poverty. For Native American 
children, it is even higher. It is 44 percent. One in five children 
goes to bed hungry. Their parents can't find adequate child care. They 
can't get quality medical care when they need it. They lack access to 
safe housing and clean water.
  This just isn't the case in New Mexico. We see it across the Nation. 
Children and families are falling behind. This has to change. The 
future--not only for our children but for our economy--depends on 
changing it. We need to be doing more, but the Republican budget does 
less.
  It would cut programs for low-income children, seniors, and families 
by up to $660 billion over 10 years, including SNAP and child nutrition 
programs.
  Healthy kids are an investment in our future economy. We need renewed 
commitment--not draconian cuts--to the programs that help children 
reach their full potential. That means infant and toddler care, 
preschool, and home-visiting programs. We know that they work and they 
can help in a big way.
  A recent White House report tells the story. These programs make a 
difference, get results and save money--more than $8 for every $1 
invested.
  That is why I introduced the Saving Our Next Generation Act, or SONG 
Act. We should fully pay for what works. That is why I am a cosponsor 
of the PRE-K Act to expand high-quality, early learning programs for 
children from birth to age 5.
  Children should be our priority. They should not take a back seat to 
billionaires and neither should the elderly, who depend on Medicare, 
not a voucher program.
  The Republican budget cuts $2.5 trillion from health care for low- 
and moderate-income people.
  Repealing the Affordable Care Act, block-granting Medicaid--seniors 
would pay more for prescription drugs and more for preventive services. 
Crucial support for nursing care and home health care would be slashed.
  We have a lot to do to get America's economy back on track. The 
Republican budget--at every turn--fails to do it. A budget isn't just 
numbers. It is about choices, and it is about priorities.
  That means investing in infrastructure. We have to upgrade our roads 
and manage our water resources. Federal dollars are almost half of New 
Mexico's total transportation budget and 70 percent of funding for our 
highways and bridges.
  It means making sure we have an educated workforce--not cutting Pell 
grants by 30 percent.
  It means full funding for the PILT program--to help communities pay 
for law enforcement, schools, and other services folks depend on.
  It means making sure our national labs and our military bases have 
the resources they need.
  All of this makes a difference for the people of my State. It makes a 
difference for hardworking families. It makes a difference for the 
future of our country.
  These should be our priorities, including doing more for small 
businesses. They are the engine of our economy. They create most new 
jobs. They need a fair tax policy--because they pay their fair share--
and don't have an army of lawyers working to find tax loopholes.
  We cannot ask Main Street to keep sacrificing while we fail to close 
a single tax loophole on Wall Street.
  We need a tax system that supports the middle class--not corporations 
sending jobs overseas. Our economy is recovering, but the benefit needs 
to go to all Americans, not just those at the top.
  These are the choices we should be making. These are the choices the 
Republican budget fails to make.
  We need to invest in the programs that help all Americans get ahead--
and strengthen our economy--so that every hardworking American has the 
opportunity to build a better future.
  I hope we can work together and find common ground with a budget that 
makes sense, with a fair tax policy, and with smart investments. We 
need to look to the future--and move forward.
  Now is not the time to return to the failed policies of the past.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 6 minutes.
  Mr. UDALL. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  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. REED. 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. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 2 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 4358]]




                           Amendment No. 652

(Purpose: To make college more affordable for middle-class families by 
 allowing borrowers with outstanding Federal and private student loans 
  to refinance at the equivalent interest rates that were offered to 
Federal student loan borrowers during the 2013-2014 school year and to 
 fully offset the cost of such a program by requiring millionaires to 
         pay at least a 30 percent effective Federal tax rate)

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Warren, I ask unanimous 
consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up her amendment 
No. 652.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for Ms. Warren, 
     for herself, Mr. Franken, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Reed, Mrs. Boxer, 
     Mrs. Murray, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. 
     Sanders, Mr. Brown, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Udall, Mrs. Shaheen, 
     Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Blumenthal, Ms. Baldwin, 
     Mr. Murphy, Mr. Markey, and Mr. Peters, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 652.

  Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. REED. 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. ISAKSON. 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. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized 
for up to 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
resume consideration of S. Con. Res. 11 following the joint meeting; 
that the time until 12:15 p.m. today be equally divided between the 
managers or their designees; and that at 12:15 p.m., the Senate vote in 
relation to the following amendments in the order listed, with no 
second-degree amendments in order prior to the votes: Burr No. 622, 
Warren No. 652.
  I further ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes equally 
divided between the managers or their designees prior to each vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ISAKSON. For the information of all Senators, there will be up to 
two rollcall votes at 12:15 p.m. today.

                          ____________________