[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5003-5006]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  If no one yields time, the time will be charged equally.
  The Senator from Vermont.


                           Motion to Instruct

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I send to the desk my motion to instruct 
conferees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] moves that the 
     managers on the part of the Senate at the conference on the 
     disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House amendment to 
     the resolution S. Con. Res. 11 be instructed to insist that 
     the final conference report include a deficit-neutral reserve 
     fund for legislation related to retirement benefits, which 
     may not include legislation cutting benefits under the old-
     age, survivors, and disability insurance program established 
     under title II of the Social Security Act, increasing the 
     retirement age, or privatizing the old-age, survivors, and 
     disability insurance program.

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as I mentioned earlier, I happen to 
believe the Republican budget we will be discussing today moves us in 
exactly the wrong direction. At a time when the middle class is in 
decline and the gap between the very rich and everybody else is growing 
wider, what the Republican budget does is make ferocious attacks on 
programs desperately depended upon by working families while at the 
same time providing outrageous tax breaks to the very wealthiest of the 
wealthy. That makes no sense to me at all.
  One area where the Republican budget is negligent--one of many areas 
where the Republican budget is negligent--is in the issue of Social 
Security. Social Security is perhaps the most important and successful 
Federal program that was ever initiated. It is life and death to 
millions of seniors and people with disabilities in this country, and 
it has a history of enormous success. Before Social Security was 
established, about half of the seniors in this country lived in 
poverty. Today, while too high, that number is somewhere around 10 
percent.
  Unfortunately, in recent years what we have seen is an increase in 
senior poverty. We have seen many seniors struggling to pay their 
bills, to heat their homes, and to buy the medicine they need. It seems 
to me that in this moment, not only should we not be talking about 
cutting Social Security, as many of our Republican colleagues are, we 
should be talking about expanding Social Security benefits. I have 
introduced legislation to do just that. But today I rise to bring forth 
legislation--bring forth a motion to instruct the budget conferees to 
include a deficit-neutral reserve fund to protect retirement benefits 
by not cutting Social Security benefits, by not raising the retirement 
age, and by not privatizing Social Security. So in essence, what this 
motion to instruct says is that we go on record as Members of the U.S. 
Senate that we will not cut Social Security benefits, that we will not 
raise the retirement age, and that we will not privatize Social 
Security.
  At a time of massive wealth and income inequality, when 99 percent of 
all of the new income generated in this country is going to the top 1 
percent and when over half of the American people have less than 
$10,000 in savings, the last thing any Member of the Senate should be 
thinking about is cutting Social Security. Today, the average Social 
Security benefit is just $1,328 a month--not a lot of money.
  Now, 20 percent of senior citizens are living on an average income of 
just $7,600 a year. Frankly, I don't know how anybody lives on an 
income of $7,600 a year. I don't know how you buy food. I don't know 
how you buy the medicine you need, how you take care of your basic 
needs. But that is the reality. More than one-third of our senior 
citizens rely on Social Security for virtually all of their income. In 
other words, Social Security for them--more than a third--is not just a 
small part of

[[Page 5004]]

their total income, it is virtually all of their income. Two-thirds of 
American seniors depend on Social Security for more than half of their 
income.
  The reality is, despite some of the rhetoric we hear around here or 
see on TV, we do not have a Social Security crisis. America has a 
retirement crisis. Given this reality, our job is to expand Social 
Security benefits, not cut them.
  I have been distressed that in three out of the four major Budget 
Committee hearings held this year, Republicans invited witnesses who 
testified in support of cutting Social Security. John Engler, the head 
of the Business Roundtable, representing the CEOs of some of the 
largest corporations and Wall Street banks in this country, was one of 
the Republican witnesses. Mr. Engler and the Business Roundtable are 
the leaders of corporate America. These are the guys who make millions 
of dollars a year in salary. These are the guys who have huge 
retirement benefits. They are asking Congress to cut Social Security 
COLAs for senior citizens and disabled veterans and to raise the 
retirement age to 70 years of age.
  Imagine that. People who are multimillionaires and have huge 
retirement benefits are coming to Capitol Hill and telling Members of 
Congress to cut Social Security. It turns out, in fact, that the CEOs 
of the Business Roundtable have retirement benefits of their own of 
some $88,000 a month. So we have the heads of large corporations who 
have retirement benefits of $88,000 a month--$1 million a year--and 
they are telling the Congress to cut benefits for people who are trying 
to survive on $14,000 a year. That is an outrage.
  I am getting a little bit tired of being lectured by CEOs of large 
corporations who want to cut the Social Security benefits of elderly 
people. That is wrong.
  I am also tired of hearing folks on TV say that Social Security is 
going broke. Well, the truth is Social Security is not going broke. 
Social Security has a $2.8 trillion surplus and could pay out every 
benefit owed to every eligible American for the next 18 years. Now, is 
18 years a terribly long time? No, it is it not. Should we develop 
legislation to extend Social Security for decades after those 18 years? 
Yes, we should, and I have done that. But, please, I hope that my 
colleagues will not stand up here and tell us that Social Security is 
going broke because it is not.
  I believe the American people feel very strongly that in these 
difficult times Social Security is a major safety net for so many of 
the elderly and disabled. When we vote tonight, our job is to send a 
very, very clear message that the Senate is not going to cut Social 
Security, it is not going to privatize Social Security, and it is not 
going to raise the age at which people get those Social Security 
benefits.
  With that, I yield the floor for the Senator from Hawaii.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member of the Budget 
Committee, the Senator from Vermont.


                           Motion to Instruct

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

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Schatz moves that the managers 
     on the part of the Senate at the conference on the 
     disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House amendment to 
     the resolution S. Con. Res. 11 be instructed to insist that 
     the final conference report include the deficit-neutral 
     reserve fund relating to ensuring all legally married same-
     sex spouses have equal access to the Social Security and 
     veterans' benefits they have earned and receive equal 
     treatment under the law pursuant to the Constitution of the 
     United States in the concurrent resolution as agreed to by 
     the Senate.

  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, 3 weeks ago, the Senate held an important 
vote on an amendment to the budget resolution, and 56 of our 
colleagues, including 11 Republicans, joined me in affirming the need 
for legislation to ensure that all legally married spouses, including 
gay couples, have access to Social Security and VA benefits that their 
families have earned.
  This amendment passed with bipartisan support because it is 
fundamentally about fairness.
  Imagine a veteran who served his country for decades fighting for 
equality and freedom around the world and he gets married in a State 
that allows gay marriage. If he is permanently disabled from his 
service, his spouse is eligible for veterans' spousal benefits. They 
have earned these benefits. But if they move or if they drive over the 
border from Florida into Georgia, for example, they lose those 
benefits. The same scenario applies to our seniors and their right to 
Social Security spousal benefits.
  Why does this happen? Simply because the Federal right to these 
benefits happens to be defined in law with respect to the State of 
residence rather than the State of celebration of the marriage. In 
other words, eligibility for these Federal benefits is based on where 
you live, not where you were married. So we have one Federal right and 
two unequal outcomes based on the person's residence. This is the 
definition of unequal treatment under the law.
  No one is denying that Americans earned their Social Security and 
veterans' benefits regardless of whether they are gay or straight. And 
since the Supreme Court's decision in the Windsor case struck down 
parts of the Defense of Marriage Act, no one can deny that the Federal 
Government is required to recognize all legal marriages.
  For almost all Federal agencies, this went into effect right away. 
Gay married couples can now file joint taxes. In legal proceedings 
before the Federal Government same-sex spouses are given the same legal 
rights as all other spouses. Under the Family and Medical Leave Act, an 
employee can now take leave to care for a same-sex spouse. These are 
just a few of the ways that the Federal Government brought its policies 
into line with the law.
  The Social Security Administration and the VA, however, are tripped 
up by an old wording in their authorizing statutes. Working together, 
we can fix this. We can pass legislation to ensure that all legally 
married couples receive equal treatment under the law regardless of 
where they live. The amendment that the Senate voted to include in the 
budget affirms the need for this legislation.
  Allowing unequal treatment under the law goes against American 
values, and it goes against our Constitution. Equality under Federal 
laws should not end when you cross State lines. We are not debating 
whether gay marriage should be legal in all 50 States. That question is 
currently in front of the Supreme Court. We are debating whether a 
Federal right should be afforded to all Americans regardless of where 
they live.
  For those who are concerned with preserving States' rights, I 
understand that perspective, but we should all support fixing the 
statutes governing Social Security and veterans' benefits. Fixing these 
statutes does not impact State law whatsoever. In contrast, by not 
fixing these statutes, the Federal Government is ignoring the laws of 
States that allow gay marriage. It actually does harm to States' rights 
to allow this situation to continue.
  This is not an ideological proposal, and I should point out that the 
Senator from Washington, Patty Murray, and the Senator from New 
Hampshire, Jeanne Shaheen--this was originally their idea. First, 
Senator Murray provided this as a piece of legislation on the Social 
Security side, and Jeanne Shaheen, likewise, presented this on the VA 
side. We worked together during the so-called vote-arama to merge these 
proposals into one because the same principle applies for both Federal 
benefits, which is that equal protection under the law should not 
depend on which of the 50 States an American citizen resides in. This 
is about treating veterans, disabled Americans, and our seniors 
equally, no matter where they live or what their sexual orientation may 
be.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

[[Page 5005]]


  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I yield time to the Senator from Ohio, 
Mr. Brown.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont and also 
the senior Senator from Wyoming for their work.


                           Motion to Instruct

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending motion be set 
aside and that my motion be sent to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Hearing none, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the motion.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Brown] moves that the managers 
     on the part of the Senate at the conference on the 
     disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House amendment to 
     the resolution S. Con. Res. 11 be instructed to insist that 
     the final conference report include the deficit-neutral 
     reserve fund relating to ending ``Too Big To Fail'' bailouts
     for Wall Street mega-banks with over $500,000,000,000 in 
     total assets, as set forth in amendment 994 to S. Con. Res. 
     11 (as agreed to by the Senate).

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, this amendment, about which I asked to 
instruct the conferees, passed by a voice vote, and I appreciate the 
acceptance of it by Senator Enzi and Senator Sanders during the vote 2 
weeks ago. We know too big to fail is still with us. We know that it is 
really all about those megabanks that are over $500 billion in total 
assets. That is what my amendment speaks to.
  In the 6\1/2\ years since Wall Street pushed our economy to the brink 
of collapse, the biggest banks have gotten, as we know, bigger.
  Think about this statistic. Just 18 years ago, the 6 largest banks in 
the United States had assets equal to 18 percent of our Nation's gross 
domestic product. Today, the 6 largest banks have assets equal to 63 
percent of our GDP, with an average of more than 5,000 legal entities 
operating in 57 countries.
  These institutions are not just massive, too big to fail in terms of 
size. They are risky and complex. In many ways they are too big to 
fail, they are too big to manage, as we have seen from the mistakes 
they have made, and they are too big in many ways to regulate.
  If a financial institution is too big to understand, then it is 
probably too complex to manage and too opaque to regulate. Dodd-Frank 
requires large banks to produce an annual living will explaining the 
bank's plan for its own rapid and orderly resolution through the 
bankruptcy process in the event of material financial distress or 
failure.
  Last year, the largest 11 banks--all 11 of them--were informed that 
their living wills were insufficient. In other words, it was not clear 
to the regulators that these 11 banks would know how to go through 
resolution. That means they failed to show that their collapse would 
not cause devastating harm to our economy as a whole. It raises this 
question: What happens if one of these banks fails?
  Today, I urge the Senate to instruct budget negotiators to create a 
deficit-neutral reserve fund to ensure that the largest Wall Street 
megabanks can be put through bankruptcy or resolution without a 
taxpayer bailout. This is the amendment that Senator Vitter, my 
Republican colleague from Louisiana, and I spoke out about, and it was 
passed unanimously in the Senate a couple of weeks ago.
  Congress should act on the remedies provided in the law for any bank 
that cannot produce a credible living will this year. We need to end 
the cycle that enables large, unsafe banks to enjoy government 
bailouts. The public is cynical about these too-big-to-fail banks. The 
public does not believe they are not too big to fail, if you will.
  The cycle that allows Wall Street to pile up private profits while 
forcing American taxpayers to be ready and willing to pick up the tab 
for their losses and failures is outrageously bad public policy. The 
American people don't want Congress to wait until we are faced with 
another crisis. Congress needs to take action now to prevent future 
economic collapse and future taxpayer-funded bailouts.
  As Senator Shelby, the senior Republican who sits on the banking 
committee with me, told the Senate banking committee last month, if a 
bank is too big to fail, it is it probably too big to exist.
  This motion to instruct will put the Senate on record that the 
American taxpayer should never ever again be on the hook for risks 
taken by megabanks.
  I ask my colleagues to vote yes.


                            Paid Sick Leave

  Mr. President, for too many Americans, a sick day means a day without 
pay. Each day workers across the country face impossible dilemmas. Do 
they go into work knowing the risks to their own health and to others 
around them or do they stay home and lose a paycheck? Do they send a 
sick child to school, knowing they are risking the health of their 
daughter and her entire classroom or do they jeopardize their job by 
taking a day off? This is a choice too many families face, and it needs 
to end.
  Guaranteeing paid sick and family leave to all Americans would 
protect public health and increase economic security for millions of 
families.
  In the 20th century, unions fought for workers' rights to 
collectively bargain--and often one of the protections they were 
bargaining for was paid sick leave. But after decades of attacks on our 
labor movement and on our middle class, most Americans are not 
protected by unions. Too often they have no protection if they have to 
miss work because of their own illness or that of their child.
  43 million workers--including 2 million Ohioans--currently have no 
paid sick leave. Workers earning the lowest wages are the least likely 
to have paid sick days and are often unable to afford to take a day off 
when they or their children get sick.
  Not only does this affect their own health, but these workers are 
often working in service jobs where they risk infecting others. They 
are often caring for seniors or children or working in stores, hotels, 
or restaurants where they risk food contamination.
  Adults without paid sick days are 1\1/2\ times more likely than 
adults with paid sick days to report going to work with a contagious 
illness, according to the National Partnership for Women and Families. 
That's why the National Partnership for Women and Families and more 
than 100 employers support this legislation. And so do many business 
owners, who realize that healthy workers are often more productive 
workers.
  But too many do not, and that is why I urge my colleagues to pass the 
Healthy Families Act. This legislation would end the agonizing choice 
faced by families by allowing workers to earn up to 7 days per year in 
paid sick time.
  This plan is good for both workers and businesses. Employers already 
providing sick time would not have to change their policies as long as 
they meet the minimum requirements and businesses with fewer than 15 
employees would be exempt.
  We know that when workers are healthy, they are more productive, and 
providing sick days decreases turnover and gives employers safer, 
healthier, and more stable workplaces. Paid sick leave will also save 
precious health care resources.
  When workers go in sick, they can spread illnesses like the flu, and 
they increase the risk of workplace injury. The American Journal of 
Public Health found that the lack of paid sick days contributed to an 
additional 5 million cases of H1N1 during the 2009 pandemic.
  The Institute for Women's Policy Research found that paid sick days 
could decrease emergency room visits by 1.3 million each year, saving 
the country $1 billion in health costs. And most importantly, 
guaranteeing paid sick leave will give families the peace of mind that 
they can protect their jobs, their families, and their health. That is 
why it is far past time for us to finally guarantee paid sick leave for 
all of our workers.
  My colleagues have all seen and heard me talk about my canary pin.
  Our duty to protect our workers continues and our work is not yet 
finished.

[[Page 5006]]

To truly embody the spirit of this pin, we must extend paid sick leave 
to all Americans--not just those lucky enough to be represented by a 
union or wealthy enough to have a high-wage job with protections.
  No parent in America today should have to choose between a paycheck 
and a sick child. No worker should have to choose between his job and 
his health.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in passing the Healthy Families Act 
without delay.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont.


                           Motion to Instruct

  I ask unanimous consent that the pending motion be set aside and that 
my motion be sent to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Ms. Warren] moves that the 
     managers on the part of the Senate at the conference on the 
     disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House amendment to 
     the resolution S. Con. Res. 11 be instructed to insist that 
     the final conference report include a provision to 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.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent that any time under quorum calls 
this afternoon be charged equally, regardless of who spoke last.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENZI. 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.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________