[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6182-6194]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2016--CONFERENCE 
                                 REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to proceed having been agreed to, 
the Chair lays before the Senate the conference report to accompany S. 
Con. Res. 11, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the House to the 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, having met, have agreed that the 
     Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the 
     House and agree to the same with an amendment, and the House 
     agree to the same, signed by a majority of the conferees on 
     the part of both Houses.

  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of April 29, 2015.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to section 305(c) of the 
Congressional Budget Act, there will now be up to 10 hours of debate 
equally divided.
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, today we have the historic opportunity to 
put our country on not just another course but a better course. This is 
because Congress is poised to approve its first balanced 10-year budget 
since 2001. This balanced budget represents a ``lean in'' moment for a 
Congress under new management to confront rapidly growing deficits 
borne from our government's habitual overspending which plagues America 
and its taxpayers.
  Understanding this historical context is critical because our Nation 
currently faces one of the largest forecasted deficits since the end of 
World War II. The joint Senate-House budget agreement, which produces 
billion-dollar surpluses in its final years, would be an accomplishment 
unequaled since 1947.
  The new leadership in the Senate is committed to getting back to 
work, which will allow us to begin rebuilding the trust of working 
Americans. Instead of allowing political points and partisan gridlock 
to take precedence over responsible governing, we are once again doing 
the people's business.
  Make no mistake--America faces overwhelming odds as we work to steer 
our ship of state to more sustainable and fiscally responsible waters. 
Even as we take in record revenues and taxes, our Nation is still 
unable to live within its means. As some of America's greatest leaders 
have previously noted, these challenges are not undertaken because they 
are easy but because they are hard.
  Americans who work every day to pay their taxes and provide for their 
families understand that it is time for the Federal Government to live 
within its means, just as they do. Just imagine if these families spent 
and borrowed the way the Federal Government does. It would mean that a 
family with a median income of $52,000 would spend $61,000 a year. The 
family would add an additional $9,000 to the $311,000 they already 
would owe on their credit card. American families know they cannot live 
on borrowed money, and neither can the Federal Government. This 
balanced budget shows these families that if they can do it, so can we.
  As with any budget, it is important to let the numbers speak on how 
this proposal helps make America stronger and more secure. This joint 
Senate-House congressional budget balances the budget within 10 years 
without raising taxes. It achieves more than $5 trillion in savings. It 
produces a $32 billion surplus in 2024 and a $24 billion surplus in 
2025 and stays in balance. It boosts the Nation's economy by more than 
$400 billion in additional economic growth over the next 10 years, 
according to the Congressional Budget Office. It is expected to grow 
1.2 million additional jobs over the next 10 years, again based on the 
Congressional Budget Office data.
  This balanced budget achieves real results and allows the Federal 
Government to support Americans when it must and get out of the way 
when it should.
  Let me tell you about some of the highlights of this budget 
agreement.
  The balanced budget ensures a strong national defense. It invests in 
our military personnel and the readiness of our Armed Forces in the 
current global threat environment. It ensures that defense spending 
reflects the commitment of Congress to keep America safe and ensure 
that our military personnel are prepared to tackle all challenges, both 
at home and abroad.
  The balanced budget provides for repeal and replacement of ObamaCare. 
It provides for the repeal of ObamaCare, including all of its taxes, 
regulations, and mandates. It paves the way for real health care 
reforms to strengthen the doctor-patient relationship, expand choices, 
lower health care costs, and improve access to quality, affordable, 
innovative health care. In other words, it delivers on what the 
President promised but never delivered. It focuses reconciliation 
instructions on the key congressional committees with jurisdiction over 
ObamaCare: the Senate Finance Committee; the Senate Health, Education, 
Labor and Pensions Committee; the House Energy and Commerce Committee; 
the House Education and the Workforce Committee; and the House Ways and 
Means Committee.

[[Page 6183]]

  The balanced budget preserves Medicare. It preserves Medicare and 
protects seniors' access to health care by extending the life of the 
Medicare hospital insurance trust fund. It repeals the Independent 
Payment Advisory Board--IPAB--the unelected, unaccountable board of 15 
bureaucrats created by the President's health care law that will make 
decisions on benefit cuts. It accounts for the recent enactment of 
legislation that addressed the Medicare Program's sustainable growth 
rate--SGR--or more commonly called the doc fix.
  The balanced budget supports stronger economic growth. It boosts U.S. 
economic growth and private sector job creation by balancing the 
budget, reducing the debt, and putting a halt to government 
overspending to reduce the cost of work and investment, as well as the 
cost of starting and growing a business.
  It expands the Nation's economy by more than $400 billion over the 
next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, under the 
old way of doing the accounting.
  It provides an estimated 1.2 million jobs for the U.S. economy by 
2025, based on data provided by the Congressional Budget Office in its 
traditional ways of evaluating.
  It boosts the Nation's gross national product by 1.4 percent per 
person after accounting for inflation by 2025, according to the 
Congressional Budget Office. This boost in economic growth will all 
come from the private sector. Government spending does not contribute 
to its growth. As my fellow Budget Committee member and businessman 
Senator Perdue notes, expanding government does not help grow the 
economy.
  The balanced budget improves accountability and effectiveness of 
government. It is important to note that a balanced budget will help 
make our government more efficient, effective, and accountable. If 
government programs are not delivering results, they should be 
improved, and if they are not needed, they ought to be eliminated.
  This agreement between the Senate and House will help Congress 
prioritize and demand results from our government programs. There is no 
doubt that this will be challenging for every single Member of 
Congress, but I believe we are up to the task because the American 
people are counting on us.
  This budget agreement improves transparency, efficiency, 
effectiveness, and accountability of the Federal Government by cutting 
waste, eliminating redundancies, and enacting regulatory reform, and 
there is plenty of that out there we have not looked at yet.
  It calls for modernizing Medicaid by increasing State flexibility and 
protecting those most in need of assistance.
  It improves honest and responsible accounting practices as part of 
the Federal budget process by ensuring that fair-value accounting 
estimates are used, which provide a more honest accounting method. This 
is in addition to the honest, dynamic scoring method that more 
accurately tells us what legislation will cost hard-working taxpayers.
  It improves the administration and coordination of benefits, and it 
increases employment opportunities for disabled workers.
  This budget also calls on Congress to pass a balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution. That point is especially important 
because we must show taxpayers that Congress is committed to a balanced 
budget and not to overspending, so we can make our government more 
effective. But we are running out of time.
  Currently, lawmakers in 27 States have passed applications for a 
convention to approve a balanced budget amendment and new applications 
in 9 other States are close behind. If we had 34 States, that would 
cause us to have a constitutional convention to balance the budget. If 
just seven of those nine States approve moving forward on the balanced 
budget issue, it will bring the total number of applications to 34 
States. This would meet the two-thirds requirement under article V of 
the Constitution and force Congress to take action.
  The other side often says they cut the Federal deficit in half during 
the President's term in office, but I think using the word ``deficit'' 
is meant to be confusing. People think he reduced the debt by one-half. 
Actually, the President has increased the Nation's debt dramatically. 
What we are talking about when we say ``deficit'' is the amount of 
overspending, the amount we spend compared to what we bring in. Yes, 
that is deficit, but it is overspending, and if we call it 
overspending, it will not be confused with bringing down the national 
debt, which is not even touched and which under the President's budget 
only gets worse.
  In his most recent budget released earlier this year, the President 
proposed a plan that never balances and includes huge spending 
increases. It also includes a $2.1 trillion tax increase--that is 
$2,100 billion of tax increases--while it adds $8.5 billion--or $8,500 
million--to the national debt. The Senate recently voted on his budget, 
and it was rejected 99 to 1.
  There is no question that balancing the budget is a daunting task. 
Last year, our Nation overspent by $468 billion, which, if left 
unchecked, is set to rise to $1,000 billion. We are in control of 
$1,100 billion in discretionary spending, and this year we will spend 
$468 billion more than we take in. I will repeat that. We are only in 
control of $1,100 billion in discretionary spending, and this year we 
will spend $468 billion more than we take in.
  This is an unsustainable financial path, and if Congress did what 
every American family has to do--live within our means--we would have 
to cut our annual discretionary spending in half. That would be a 50-
percent cut.
  This is because we spend 1\1/2\ times what we take in for items on 
which we can make decisions. No family or State government can do that 
for very long, but the Federal Government does it every year.
  Our budget is not perfect, but it is a start. It provides Congress 
and the Nation with a fiscal blueprint that challenges lawmakers to 
examine every dollar we spend.
  This is crucial because we currently spend over $230 billion in 
interest on our debt every year, and that is at an interest rate of 1.7 
percent. The Congressional Budget Office tells us that every 1 
percentage point that our interest rates rise will increase America's 
overspending by $1,745 billion over the next 10 years.
  We have a looming debt of $18 trillion on its way to $27 trillion. If 
our interest rates were to rise to 5 percent, which is the historical 
norm, we will have to spend almost $700 billion annually, out of the 
$1,100 billion we get to make decisions on, to pay the interest on our 
debt. This would be catastrophic for our Nation's economy. It is vital 
that we address this situation now while we still have some choices.
  To provide a clearer picture of how dire our Nation's fiscal outlook 
is, if we were forced to balance the budget in 1 year, we would have to 
eliminate most of our defense spending, most of our highway spending, 
and most of our education spending. This drastic 50-percent cut would 
be needed because of our consistent overspending and our interest 
payments, which are set to explode.
  What are the two best ways to make a difference?
  First, Congress should look at the more than 260 programs whose 
authorization--the right to spend money--has expired. Some of these 
government programs expired in 1983, but we are still spending money on 
them every year. That means we have been paying for these expired 
programs for more than 30 years. In some cases, we spend as much as 
four times the spending authority that has expired. We have to look at 
those programs.
  For the 260 programs that have expired, we are spending $293 billion 
a year. Normally, we talk about over a 10-year period. Over a 10-year 
period, that would be $2,935 billion. Eliminating those programs would 
almost balance the budget. They can't be eliminated, but they should be 
looked at regularly. That is why we have authorizations that expire. 
That is so we are forced to take a look at them. No, that is so we 
should be forced to take a look at them; obviously, we don't. We

[[Page 6184]]

don't do that because we want the committees of jurisdiction to have a 
hard look at the expired authorizations and make them current or, if 
there are duplications, eliminate the programs that are not needed 
after all or, with duplication, we ought to be able to at least get rid 
of half of the administrative bureaucracy on it and make sure the money 
gets out into the country where we promised it.
  Now, there is a second way. The other way we can balance the budget 
is to grow the economy. The Congressional Budget Office tells us that 
if we were to increase the gross domestic product, private sector 
growth--again, this is not referring to government GDP; that is just 
private sector growth--if we were to increase the private sector growth 
by 1 percent, that would provide an additional $300 billion in 
additional tax revenue every year. I think that could balance the 
budget. But first we must get our overspending under control because 
Congress is already spending more tax revenue than at any point in 
history. When we take the tax revenue from the individuals and from the 
businesses, we slow down this growth that would provide the additional 
$300 billion in tax revenue every year. If we grow the economy, we will 
expand opportunity for each and every American.
  Now, I know in their speeches our friends from across the aisle will 
criticize us for not being finished by April 15. But think of it this 
way: We did something in 4 months that they could only accomplish once 
in 4 years, and that is produce a budget--let alone a budget that 
actually balances.
  While they were in charge, they often didn't produce a budget by 
April 15 or October 1 or even January 1. In fact, they produced only 
one budget conference agreement in the last 6 years, so don't criticize 
us for what we are doing. While we may have taken a few extra days, we 
did get it done, and this budget is poised to play a vital role in 
helping Congress get back to the work of doing the people's business. 
And when we get it done on time, the spending committees can begin on 
time. Hopefully, that will give the spending committees time to look at 
this duplication and the unauthorized spending we have.
  Now, some point out that the President was able to get his budget out 
on time. That is true, but the last time I checked, he didn't have to 
run it by 535 elected officials as we do; he just had to run it past 
one elected official--himself. I should mention that is the first time 
in 6 years he has gotten a budget to us on time. We even had to have a 
rollcall vote today to proceed to this privileged conference report. I 
don't understand that.
  The Senate Budget Committee is tasked with the responsibility of 
setting spending goals. Congress has other committees that authorize 
government programs and they are charged with overseeing their 
efficiency and effectiveness. We also have committees that allocate the 
exact dollars for these programs every year, but the Senate Budget 
Committee sets the spending goals. In other words, we set limits and we 
set some enforcement.
  This is why passing a budget is so important for our Nation. It lets 
the congressional policymakers who actually allocate the dollars get to 
work by following our spending limits. This year, we are giving them an 
early start. Leader McConnell is committed to allowing the Senate to do 
its job, and that means debate and votes on the 12 appropriations 
bills--the 12 spending bills. This is an important occurrence in the 
Senate, because over the past 8 years, appropriations bills have been 
as rare as ice cubes in the desert.
  I wish to thank my colleagues in both the Senate and the House for 
all their hard work in producing a joint budget agreement that balances 
within 10 years, does not raise taxes, strengthens our Nation's 
defense, protects our most vulnerable citizens, improves economic 
growth and opportunity for hard-working families, and stops the Federal 
Government's out-of-control spending. These important steps, and still 
others to come, show Congress is back working for the American people 
to deliver on the promise of a government that is more accountable. 
This is something each and every American expects and deserves from its 
leaders in Washington. With action on our balanced budget, we will 
deliver.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me thank Senator Enzi for his 
civility and his humor. I have enjoyed the process by which we have 
gotten to where we are today. But I must say that anyone who takes an 
objective look at this Republican budget can do nothing else but 
conclude that this is an absolute disaster for the working families of 
this country. In fact, one of the problems I have had in describing the 
Republican budget is that it is so bad--it is so far out of touch with 
where the American people are--that people really don't even believe us 
when we talk about what is in this budget, which is what I am going to 
do in a moment.
  Before I do that, I think we can all agree that what a budget is 
about is a development of priorities to address problems. We look at 
what is going on in our country as we assess the needs of the American 
people, and we build a budget around those needs. So let me begin by 
assessing what I believe are the needs of the American people.
  The fundamental economic reality of today is that for the last 40 
years--not the last 6 years, not the last 20 years but the last 40 
years--the middle class of this country has been disappearing. Today, 
we have more people living in poverty than at almost any time in the 
modern history of America, and yet while that is going on, the gap 
between the very, very, very rich and everybody else is growing wider 
and wider.
  Today, in fact, in America, we have more income and wealth inequality 
than any other major country on Earth. I know many people think that in 
the United Kingdom, they have the Queen and dukes and lords and all of 
this aristocracy; clearly, their distribution of wealth and income must 
be a lot worse than it is in the United States. That is not the case. 
Today, compared to every other major country on Earth, our distribution 
of wealth and income is the worst, and it is worse in this country 
today than at any time since the late 1920s.
  It is hard to believe but true: Today, 99 percent of all new income 
goes to the top 1 percent. Since the Wall Street crash of 2008, 99 
percent of all new income goes to the top 1 percent. What that means is 
all over this country we have people working not one job but two jobs, 
three jobs; people working longer hours for lower wages. Yet 99 percent 
of all of the new income generated is going to the top 1 percent. In 
the midst of that reality, our Republican colleagues say, Well, only 99 
percent of all new income goes to the top 1 percent, but what can we do 
to make the richest people even richer?
  Median family income in this country since 1999 has gone down by 
almost $5,000. Families are struggling to put bread on the table, to 
send their kids to college, to take care of their basic needs. But the 
Republican budget says the middle class is shrinking, people are 
struggling; what can we do to make life even harder for the working 
families of our country.
  When we talk about unemployment in America, the official unemployment 
rate is 5.5 percent. The true unemployment--real unemployment--however, 
is 10.9 percent, if we include those people who have given up looking 
for work and people who are working part-time when they want to work 
full-time. Youth unemployment, which we never talk about, is over 17 
percent, and African-American youth unemployment is literally off of 
the charts. Does the Republican budget say: How do we put the American 
people back to work or how do we help our young people who are 
desperately looking for jobs or looking for education? Quite the 
contrary. The Republican budget cuts virtually every program out there 
that is designed to help working families and unemployed workers.
  The typical male worker--that male worker in the middle of the 
American economy--incredibly made $783 less last year than he did 42 
years ago. In other words, the middle class in this country is moving, 
unfortunately, in the wrong direction.

[[Page 6185]]

  Does the Republican budget say that we are going to raise the minimum 
wage so that everybody in this country who works 40 hours a week can 
live with dignity? No, it does not. Again, it moves us in exactly the 
wrong direction.
  While unemployment is much too high, while median family income has 
gone down, when millions of people are working longer hours for lower 
wages, there is another phenomenon taking place in this country, and 
that is that the wealthiest people and the largest corporations are 
doing phenomenally well--not good, not pretty good--phenomenally well. 
Today, we live in a society where the top 1 percent owns almost as much 
wealth as the bottom 90 percent.
  Here is the chart. The top 1 percent owns almost as much wealth--here 
at the top is the 1 percent. Here is the bottom 90 percent, going down. 
That is reality.
  The Republican budget says: Wow, look at that extraordinary disparity 
in wealth. We are going to do something about it.
  Yes, they do something about it. Their proposals will make the rich 
even richer and working people even poorer. Not only do we have a 
situation today where--as incredible as it may sound--the wealthiest 14 
people in this country--the wealthiest 14--not 1,400, not 14,000, but 
the wealthiest 14 people in this country--in the last 2 years have seen 
their wealth increase by $157 billion. So 14 people have seen their 
wealth increase by $157 billion. That is more wealth than the total 
wealth of the bottom 130 million Americans.
  Here is a chart showing Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, an increase of 
$19 billion. Larry Ellison's wealth increased by $11 billion. This is 
just an increase over a 2-year period. Do you know what the Republican 
budget says to these guys? Hey, $157 billion in increase in 2 years? 
That is not enough. We are going to give your families a very 
significant tax break by ending the estate tax.
  We have a situation where one family in this country--the Walton 
families, which own Walmart--that one family owns more wealth than the 
bottom 42 percent of the American people.
  Given the huge disparity of wealth and income, given the fact that 
millions of Americans today are struggling to put food on the table, 
given the fact that working families don't know how they can afford 
quality child care for their kids and middle class families don't know 
how they are able to send their kids to college, the Republican budget 
in virtually every instance moves us in exactly the wrong direction.
  The United States of America, sadly, is the only major country on 
Earth that does not guarantee health care to all people as a right--
something that I believe should occur. I think health care is a right 
and not a privilege. Today, we have made some gains under the 
Affordable Care Act. We have more people who have health insurance than 
was the case a number of years ago. That is a good thing. This is what 
the Republican budget does: The Republican budget, by ending the 
Affordable Care Act and by cutting Medicaid by over $400 billion, 
throws 27 million Americans off of health insurance. That is it--27 
million Americans--men, women, kids--off of health insurance. What 
happens to those people? How many of those 27 million people will die? 
Certainly thousands, because when they get sick they are not going to 
be able to go to a doctor. How many of those people will suffer because 
they had illnesses that could have been treated or cured, but they 
can't go to a doctor? This budget knocks 27 million people off of 
health insurance. When you ask the Republicans what happens to those 
people, they have no response at all--none, zero. So instead of moving 
us in the direction of having health care for all of our people, they 
increase the number of uninsured by 27 million Americans.
  At a time when senior poverty is increasing, the Republican budget 
calls for ending Medicare as we know it by turning it into a voucher 
program. What does that mean? The Republican idea is that we give 
people a voucher. I don't know that they have an exact amount for their 
voucher--maybe $8,000--whatever. They say: Here is a check for $8,000. 
You are 85 years of age and you are struggling with cancer. Here is 
your check for $8,000, and you go out to a private insurance company 
and get the best deal you can.
  If you are 85 years of age and you are struggling with cancer or 
heart disease and somebody gives you a check for $8,000, you tell me 
what kind of private insurance you are going to be able to get. How 
many days will it last you in the hospital? This is an effort to 
undermine and destroy Medicare. It is a disastrous idea. That is 
exactly what is in the Republican proposal.
  At a time when millions of disabled people are trying to survive on 
less than $14,000 a year, the Republican budget would pave the way for 
a massive cut to Social Security Disability Insurance. Instead of 
making college more affordable--and I know that in the State of 
Vermont, my State, and I expect in States all over this country, young 
people are really wondering whether they want to go to college, because 
they are so nervous about the debt they will have when they come out--
what is the Republican response to the crisis of the lack of 
affordability of college? Here is their response. They would cut Pell 
grants by more than $85 billion over the next decade, which would make 
the cost of college education more expensive for some 8 million 
Americans. In other words, instead of addressing this crisis, instead 
of helping make us competitive in a global economy by giving us the 
best-educated workforce, what they do is to move us in the wrong 
direction.
  We are as a nation the wealthiest Nation in the history of the world. 
Most people don't know it, because almost all of that wealth goes to a 
handful of people on top. In the midst of this extremely wealthy 
Nation, disgracefully, today, we have millions and millions of families 
who literally are worried about how they are going to put food on the 
table and feed their kids tomorrow and next week.
  I can tell you that in the State of Vermont--and I expect in States 
around this country--we have people working 40 and 50 hours a week but, 
because their wages are so low, they don't earn enough money to buy the 
food they need to properly take care of their kids and feed their kids 
well. Those families literally go to emergency food shelters all over 
America. These are working people who never in their lives thought they 
would have to go to an emergency food shelter. That is what they are 
doing all over America.
  What is the Republican response to hunger in America, taking care of 
the most basic needs we have? The Republican response is massive cuts--
massive cuts--to food stamps and the WIC Program. The WIC Program is a 
wonderful program to ensure that low-income pregnant women get good 
nutrition and that their babies have good nutrition. How basic can it 
get? Cut those programs. Cut the Meals On Wheels programs for fragile 
seniors.
  In the midst of throwing 27 million Americans off of health 
insurance, in the midst of cutting $85 billion for Pell grants to make 
it harder for our kids to go to college, in the midst of making massive 
cuts in nutrition programs which would increase hunger and suffering in 
the United States of America, Republicans do something else that is 
literally remarkable--and I know people think I am not telling the 
truth. I am.
  What they say is that when the rich are getting richer, when almost 
all new income and wealth is going to the people on top, what they have 
decided to do for the wealthiest 6,000 families in America--the top 
two-tenths of 1 percent--what they say to these billionaire families is 
that we are going to give you a massive tax break by repealing the 
estate tax. What we are going to do is give you a $269 billion tax 
break that goes to the top two-tenths of 1 percent, and 99.8 percent of 
the American people will not gain one nickel in benefits from the 
repeal of the estate tax. It only goes to the wealthiest of the 
wealthy.
  But to add insult to injury, while giving a huge tax break for the 
billionaire

[[Page 6186]]

class, the Republican budget also says: Let's see if we can raise taxes 
on lower-income and working-class families by allowing the expanded 
earned-income tax credit and child tax credit to expire. These are tax 
credits that go to working families and lower-income families who have 
kids. We added a more generous benefit a few years ago, and they are 
going to allow that to expire at the same time as they give a massive 
tax break to the wealthiest families in this country.
  My friend from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi, talks repeatedly about the deficit. 
I agree that the deficit is a problem. But he will acknowledge that 
under the last 6 years under President Obama, we have made significant 
progress in reducing the deficit--about two-thirds. But it remains very 
high. We have an $18 trillion debt and that is a real issue. There is 
no denying it. One of the reasons that we have a huge debt--not the 
only reason but one of the reasons--is that the United States under 
President Bush went to war in Iraq and went to war in Afghanistan.
  Now nobody knows what the end cost of that war will be by the time we 
take care of the last veteran 50 or 60 years from now, but the best 
guesses are that those wars will cost us $4 to $6 trillion by the time 
we take care of the needs of our last veteran who served in those wars.
  How do we pay for those wars? How do we pay for those wars? In every 
other war that this country fought, Presidents had the courage to go 
forward and say: Wars are expensive. We are going to raise taxes. Not 
in this case--those wars were put on the credit card--$4 to $6 trillion 
and we didn't pay for it.
  Apparently, my Republican colleagues haven't learned a simple 
lesson--that you can't be honest and worry about the deficit, and then 
go to war and not pay for it. What they have done in this budget is to 
increase Pentagon spending by another $38 billion next year and $186 
billion over the next 10 years.
  And how is that paid for? Oh, it is not paid for. It goes on the 
credit card. They put it all into the so-called OCO account, and this 
is, by the way, an account that many of my conservative friends have 
called an accounting gimmick.
  So here we are. Here we are at a time when this country probably 
faces more serious problems than at any time since the Great 
Depression. The middle class is disappearing. Poverty is much too high. 
The gap between the very, very, very rich and everybody else is growing 
wider and wider. Real unemployment is much too high. Young people are 
unable to afford to go to college. On every one of those issues, the 
Republican budget does exactly the opposite of what we should be doing.
  In the year 2015, we should not be voting or bringing forth a budget 
which makes the billionaires even richer while cutting programs for 
people who are struggling. With an $18 trillion debt, we should not be 
increasing military spending by simply adding that money to the 
deficit.
  So I would hope that people in this body, in the Senate, will take a 
deep breath, and appreciate, in fact, what is going on with working 
families in this country and will vote no on this disastrous budget.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, thank you very much.
  I want to thank Senator Sanders for laying out the budget in a way 
that makes sense. It is a document that is supposed to reflect our 
values, who we are. It is supposed to be a roadmap for the future. What 
Mr. Sanders has just said is that it is a roadmap to disaster, and I 
intend to pick up on that theme.
  I want also to say that I know how hard it is to get a budget out. I 
was on the House Budget Committee for years and on the Senate Budget 
Committee. I want to compliment Senator Enzi. I know it is hard to put 
together a coalition, even within your own party. He has said that the 
Senate is under new management and he is very excited about it, and I 
understand that. I get it. I have been in both the majority and the 
minority and I like the majority a lot better.
  But the bottom line is, if this is the first big action of the new 
management, let's bring back the old one, because in this budget, the 
people who benefit are the very tippy top maybe two-tenths of 1 
percent. It is unreal. I am not going to stand on the floor and just 
throw out barbs, I am going to give definite numbers so everybody sees 
what we mean.
  The only time we have had a balanced budget in recent history was 
when Bill Clinton was President and the Democrats controlled the 
Senate. I remember it well because we didn't get one Republican vote 
for that budget that was so critical.
  I remember my colleague Senator Bob Kerrey was thinking about it so 
hard. He saw all sides. He went to the movies, and during the movie he 
came to a--this was the right budget--he came back and voted and it got 
done.
  Now, that was a Democratic budget that invested in the people of the 
United States of America, invested in their infrastructure, invested in 
their education, invested in their health care, and invested in them. 
It invested in them.
  Remember, President Clinton said: Put America's families first. And 
it worked because we invested in our people. We headed into a period of 
unprecedented growth--23 million jobs created under Bill Clinton and 
the budget balanced.
  As soon as George W. Bush took over, he did enormous tax cuts for the 
wealthiest at the top, got us into two wars--put them on a credit 
card--and we have been battling our way back after the worst economic 
downturn. If you look at the job creation under ``W,'' it is just 
shocking. Now, under President Obama, we have fought tooth and nail and 
we are coming back. This budget is an unmitigated disaster.
  Let's start. At a time when 16 million people have finally been able 
to get health insurance thanks to the Affordable Care Act, also known 
as ObamaCare, they want to repeal this law and throw these people out. 
They will not have health care, and then what will happen? They will 
suffer, their families will suffer, and the economy will suffer. At a 
time when nearly 70 million Americans rely on Medicaid and CHIP for 
health coverage--Medicaid, we know is for the working poor, CHIP is for 
children--they want to block grant that program and, while they are 
doing it, impose cuts of more than $1.3 trillion.
  So you have to ask this question--this isn't just a matter of putting 
a number on an easel--what will it mean for maternity care when half of 
all of our births in the United States are financed by Medicaid? Half 
of all births in the United States are financed by Medicaid, and they 
are cutting Medicaid by $1.3 trillion. So they will fight for your 
right to be born, but, boy, don't count on getting any help if you wind 
up in a maternity ward.
  At a time when more than 50 million senior citizens and disabled 
Americans are in the Medicare Program and baby boomers continue to age 
in, they propose cutting the program by $430 billion by placing the 
burden on the backs of seniors and privatizing that program through 
vouchers. They are going to end Medicare: Senior citizens, you are 
under new management here, and they are ending Medicare as we know it, 
as we know that great program.
  So after years of being the most successful program--and if you ask 
people on Medicare if they like it, they not only like it, they love 
it--they are ending it.
  As Senator Sanders pointed out, eloquently, I thought, they are 
saying to a sick person--you know, people are living longer. Thank God. 
So let's say a person is 85, 90 years old, having a hard time 
functioning and then gets a desperate cancer on top of it: Here is 
money. Go out and find the best insurance you can. Oh, yes, we know you 
are 90. Here is a Web site.
  Oh, I don't have a computer.
  Too bad. We are under new management over here. Oh, great. Bring back 
the old management. That is what I think.
  The old management wasn't perfect, but the old management had a 
heart, had a soul. No one will hear.
  Now, how is this: In case you are not sold about how devastating this 
budget

[[Page 6187]]

is, the Republican budget resolution eliminates opportunities for the 
neediest students from preschool to college by cutting $270 billion 
from education and job training investments over the next decade. So 
while the Republican leadership is pushing for free trade, free trade, 
whatever, what is happening to training our workers? They are cut.
  At a time when less than one-half of eligible preschool-aged children 
are able to participate in Head Start, half of our eligible kids cannot 
get in. The Republican budget cuts the program by over $4 billion, 
resulting in over 400,000 children losing access to Head Start over the 
next decade.
  Now, tell me I am dreaming. This is the new management. We are going 
to take 400,000 children over the next decade and say: Sorry, no room 
for you. The door is closed.
  We all know Head Start is critical.
  We know the cost of college continues to rise. We all know it--
because we are alive, we have a heartbeat and a pulse, and everybody 
alive today knows what it is. I have met people who are still paying 
off their student loan debt when they are on Social Security. That is 
the new reality. What did they do? They cut Pell grant funding by more 
than one-third, making college less affordable for many of the more 
than 8 million students receiving aid.
  So let's see who is now in their line of fire: middle class, seniors, 
little babies, students, and workers. At a time when student loan debt 
has reached $1.2 trillion and students are graduating with over $28,000 
in student loan debt, on average, the Republican budget resolution 
eliminates the in-school interest subsidy for need-based student loans, 
causing student loan debt to increase by nearly $4,000 for an estimated 
30 million students.
  So it isn't bad enough for them to know that people are paying off 
their student loans when they are on Social Security, now they are 
increasing the cost of student loans even more, instead of working with 
us to decrease the cost to students. I will tell you, if every taxpayer 
in America is a shareholder, it is time to call a meeting and change 
this management.
  Now, if you are a renter, one in four renters is paying more than 
half their income on housing, placing them one paycheck away from 
homelessness--half your income. The Republican budget resolution 
eliminates housing assistance for 450,000 families due to a 14-percent 
cut to the section 8 rental assistance program--beautiful.
  At a time when 45.3 million people are living in poverty, the 
Republican budget resolution cuts about $800 billion from income 
security programs over 10 years. This category includes SNAP, 
Supplemental Security Income for low-income seniors and people with 
disabilities, and heating assistance for low-income families--lovely, 
lovely. Welcome to the new management that is the Senate.
  Here is the thing, this is even hard to imagine they did it. It upset 
them so much that the wealthiest 14 families might get hit with a 
little bit of the tax--and I am talking about people who are worth over 
$10 million, way more, 20, 30, 40, 50--you name it, the highest level. 
They give them a $3 million tax cut.
  They actually raised taxes by an average of $900 on 16 million low- 
and moderate-income families by allowing expansions to the EITC and 
child tax credit to expire, so there is no expansion of that program.
  Now, whom else could we hit? Well, maybe we could hit some of our 
States that are suffering from the realities of climate change, such as 
the Western States that are undergoing the longest recorded drought in 
history.
  Come talk to my farmers, ask them how happy they are that you are 
proposing dramatic cuts--and have imposed them in this budget--to the 
EPA, to the Department of Interior, DOE, and to NOAA--the agencies best 
equipped to steward our precious natural resources, develop a clean 
energy future, enforce our water laws, and protect our health.
  But wait a minute. There are a few people who were left--away from 
this budget knife. Well, if you drive a car or you drive a truck or you 
get on a bus, you get hit too.
  Listen to this one. At a time when 63,500 of our bridges are 
structurally deficient and 50 percent of our roads are in less than 
good condition, this budget cuts transportation and infrastructure 
investment by more than $200 billion over 10 years, a cut of 40 
percent.
  I just had a press conference a couple of weeks ago with Republican 
business leaders and Democratic workers, and they have come together 
against this new management idea. They are looking to fund the highway 
trust fund.
  The whole fund expires this month. I haven't heard one word about how 
we are going to have a multiyear funding bill. We have six States today 
that have stopped spending on infrastructure.
  The last I checked, we are still the greatest Nation in the world. 
Tell me, how do you remain a great power if your bridges are 
structurally deficient--63,500 of them. How do you remain a world power 
when you cannot move goods efficiently or people efficiently?
  I will say, in all my years here, I have had the best relationship on 
infrastructure spending with my colleague Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma. 
This budget predicts a 40-percent decrease in infrastructure spending, 
so pretty much everyone--everyone who is impacted by this new 
management, which is all of us--is getting hit hard by this budget. A 
budget is a reflection of whom you fight for, whom you believe in, and 
what your values are. This budget will bring pain to middle-class 
families, to our working poor, to our children, to our seniors, to our 
students, to our drought-plagued or flood-plagued areas, and to the 
people who use their automobiles to go to work.
  In essence, this budget hurts the very people we should be fighting 
for. Instead of checking with those who actually balanced the budget--
when Bill Clinton was President--they go off on an opposite tear, which 
is to take away investments--which is what led to the prosperity, which 
is what led to the balanced budget, which is what led to 23 million 
jobs--and put in place austerity.
  I gave you just a little look at some of these cuts. But, guess what, 
America, there is a secret in the budget. There is another $900 billion 
of cuts over the next 10 years in a secret little package, unspecified 
cuts, almost $1 trillion, because they don't even know where to go to 
cut. So if you didn't like the cuts I talked about, wait until they get 
to the unspecified cuts.
  Who do you think is going to get those cuts? Not the wealthy few 
families, it is going to be more pain for the middle class, more pain 
for the working poor, and more pain for the workers and businesses of 
the transportation sector. We are not going to see cures for 
Alzheimer's or cancer because, believe me, that is not going to happen, 
no initiatives there.
  This budget does not belong on the Senate floor. This budget is too 
painful to be enacted. This budget ought to be redone with an eye 
toward the balance we achieved those years ago by making smart 
investments in our people and by cutting back on wasteful spending but 
not bringing political vendettas to the table when already so many 
millions of our people have health insurance. You are going to take 
that away? You fought so hard for the chance to govern--you did, 
believe me--just as we are going to fight to get it back. That is what 
politics is. But now it is time to work together.
  This is a radical budget. This doesn't reflect any coming together. 
And as soon as we wake up America to the fact that this budget hurts 
them, maybe we will have a chance to fix it. I really hope so because 
our middle class can't take any more pain. Our drivers can't take any 
more pain. Our students can't take any more pain. Our seniors can't 
take any more pain. Our children can't fend for themselves.
  So I hope we will have a big ``no'' vote on this budget. I also hope, 
after we have our vote, that we come together and fix some of these 
major problems, starting with the highway trust fund, where already six 
of our States have stopped spending. There

[[Page 6188]]

are still 800,000 unemployed construction workers and thousands of 
businesses suffering because we don't have a long-term solution to the 
highway trust fund. Why don't we take care of that? No, we are going to 
take up some fast-track, speedy trade bill that includes countries that 
pay their people 52 cents an hour. That is what we are going to do. We 
are going to rush to that.
  Why don't we fix the problems here? Why don't we fix the student loan 
rate so people aren't paying off student loans when they are on Social 
Security? Why don't we make sure people can afford to get educated? Why 
don't we improve the health care system and not throw people off the 
rolls? Let's do it the right way. Let's not do it ``my way or the 
highway'' because that only is going to wind up hurting the American 
people.
  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. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am glad I had a chance to come to the 
floor and listen to the distinguished ranking member on the Committee 
on the Budget and the senior Senator from California talk about this 
budget, but I feel like it is two ships passing in the night when I see 
this remarkable accomplishment under the leadership of Chairman Enzi on 
the Committee on the Budget and the entire Committee on the Budget.
  This is a congressional budget that balances within 10 years. It 
doesn't raise taxes. It reprioritizes our Nation's defense. It protects 
our most vulnerable citizens. It improves economic growth, which is 
literally the rising tide that lifts all boats in a growing economy. 
That is something our economy has not been doing very well lately. And 
it stops the Federal Government's out-of-control Federal spending. This 
is really a remarkable accomplishment. As a matter of fact, this is the 
first joint 10-year balanced budget resolution since 2001.
  I think what drives our friends across the aisle crazy is the fact 
they haven't passed a budget since 2009. Now, with the new leadership 
here in the Senate, in the 114th Congress, we have done the basic work 
of governing, which is to propose--and this afternoon we will pass--a 
balanced budget.
  I know there are differences across the aisle. Clearly, there are 
reasons why people choose to be a Democratic Senator or a Republican 
Senator. But, to me, the differences are pretty stark. Our friends 
across the aisle don't think that the government should have to live 
within its means but that we should continue borrowing money we don't 
have and overspending and hand the bill to our kids and grandkids. I 
personally think that is a moral hazard. That is really 
unconscionable--to keep spending money and then to send the bill to our 
kids and grandkids and say: You pay. We had a good time. Good luck.
  Our friends across the aisle think the Federal Government is not big 
enough because they want to continue to feed the beast with more of 
Americans' hard-earned tax dollars so it can get bigger and intrude 
further into everyone's freedoms and choices that should be left to 
individuals and their families.
  It sounds to me as though the ranking member on the Committee on the 
Budget, the Senator from Vermont, thinks the government ought to simply 
take more of the money Americans have earned and give it to somebody 
else who didn't earn it.
  I can only conclude that our friends across the aisle think an $18 
trillion debt is not a problem. It is. When interest rates start 
creeping back up, as they eventually will, more and more of our tax 
dollars are going to be spent sending interest payments to the Chinese 
and other holders of our sovereign debt to service that debt. That is 
going to crowd out not only national security spending, it is going to 
crowd out the safety net spending we all agree is necessary for people 
who can't protect themselves.
  So there are real differences.
  This budget, I am proud to say--which we will pass this afternoon 
thanks to the heroic work of our Committee on the Budget--is a real 
accomplishment. I guess what would be a real embarrassment is if we 
didn't pass a budget. But we will pass a budget.
  People listening at home may say: Why are you patting yourselves on 
the back for passing a budget? We have a budget in our business. We 
have a budget at home. So why is it such a big deal for the new 
Congress to actually pass a budget?
  Well, I guess it shouldn't be a big deal. It should be something we 
do routinely because it is really the most basic demonstration of the 
ability to govern. But what makes it remarkable is the fact that it 
hasn't happened in a long time. So that is why I am so glad.
  We actually have seen under the new leadership in the 114th Congress 
some real progress. We have actually seen Democrats and Republicans 
working together to accomplish some important things. That is something 
which I think the American people appreciate and which all Members of 
the Senate have come to enjoy. The mood has changed. The ability of 
Senators to participate in the process and actually come up with 
solutions has gotten so much better in just the first 100 days of the 
114th Congress, I think we are slowly starting to develop some 
momentum.
  We passed a bill that lets Medicare beneficiaries see the doctors 
they need. That is a good thing. We also passed an important piece of 
legislation that provides aid to victims of human trafficking. Through 
the end of this week, we will continue to work our way through another 
important piece of legislation, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, 
which was unanimously voted out of committee a few weeks ago. This is 
very important not only to the region in the Middle East but also to us 
and the world. This bill will guarantee that Congress will have an 
opportunity to review and potentially block any final deal with Iran 
that President Obama reaches during the so-called P5+1 negotiations.
  After we conclude the consideration of that important piece of 
legislation, we are going to move on to consider something else I think 
will help grow the economy and actually end up bringing more revenue 
into the Federal Treasury, help us with some of our deficits and debt, 
and that is to pass trade promotion authority and then to take up the 
Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement.
  My State happens to export more than any other State in the Nation, 
and our economy reflects that because just our binational trade with 
Mexico creates about 6 million jobs. It is a good thing to have more 
markets in which to sell the things our farmers grow or sell the 
livestock our ranchers raise or the manufactured goods Americans make. 
It is a good thing.
  This bill would make sure the United States gets the best deal in 
pending trade agreements with countries from Asia, to South America, to 
Europe, and it would help make sure that Texas's products and, more 
generally, American products and industries find new markets, which 
will in turn raise wages for hard-working families. That is something 
we all support.
  With all these other signs of progress, I think that writing and 
passing a budget is one of the most fundamental responsibilities we 
have. While that should be pretty obvious--families across the country 
sit around the table each month and do the same thing--it is a fact 
that was lost on many of our Democratic colleagues when they controlled 
the Chamber.
  While listening to the Senator from California, I was reminded once 
again of what a cut in Washington, DC, is. It is not a cut in the 
amount of spending in a program at current levels, it is a reduction in 
the rate of increase. That is what they call a cut. What this budget 
does is it begins to cut the rate of increase of spending in a way that 
helps us control the deficits and take the first important step toward 
dealing with our long-term debt.

[[Page 6189]]

  When we vote on this budget today, it will be the first time both 
Chambers have actually voted for an agreed-upon spending bill since 
2009. As I said earlier, it will be the first balanced 10-year budget 
since 2001, and that is despite 4 consecutive years of trillion-dollar 
deficits under President Obama--trillion-dollar deficits. Those 
deficits, as the chairman has appropriately pointed out, add up to 
debt, the deficit being the difference between what the government 
brings in and what it spends in a given year. Four years of consecutive 
trillion-dollar deficits has done grave damage to our national debt, 
with a downgrade in America's credit rating by Standard & Poor's.
  It would be one thing if the President and our friends across the 
aisle had a good record when it comes to their budgets and their 
proposals, but they do not. Just look at what the President has 
proposed.
  President Obama has missed statutory deadlines to propose a budget so 
often that it became more notable when he actually did fulfill that 
responsibility than when he did not.
  When the President's budget was voted on in 2011, it was unanimously 
rejected by Democrats and Republicans. It didn't receive a single vote. 
The same was true in 2012. If the President had proposed a responsible 
budget, I am certain Members of his own party would have at least voted 
for it. In 2011 and 2012, no Democrat voted for the President's budget. 
Last year, in the House of Representatives, all but two Members voted 
against the President's budget when given the chance. It went down by a 
resounding 413 to 2. That was the President's budget proposal. We saw 
history repeat itself in March as well. One by one, nearly every Member 
of this body came to the floor and gave a thumbs down to President 
Obama's budget proposal. As a matter of fact, it got one vote; it went 
down 98 to 1.
  Whether it is offering a completely irresponsible budget that is 
rejected by both parties or the failure to offer any budget at all, our 
friends across the aisle are living in a glass house. And when you live 
in a glass house, you really shouldn't throw stones. But the most 
important point is that the American people deserve better.
  We had an important election in November, and it changed the majority 
in the Senate. It established new management.
  In that last election cycle we made promises we intend to keep, and 
we were elected on our promise to be different and to govern 
responsibly. That promise includes passing a budget that protects 
taxpayers and sets the Nation on a path toward sound fiscal footing. 
Fortunately for the American people, we are keeping our campaign 
pledges, and this budget does reflect their confidence in the new 
leadership of the Congress.
  This budget leaves our country with a surplus after 10 years. It puts 
us on a path to begin to pay down our national debt, and it does not 
raise taxes.
  By balancing the budget without tax hikes, like we do in Texas with 
our budget, we can protect taxpayers and foster an economic environment 
that allows jobs and opportunity to blossom.
  But protecting our taxpayers is not our only priority. I believe our 
No. 1 priority in the Federal Government is national security. I 
believe Congress needs to make sure that is unmistakably clear, and we 
do so in this budget.
  The budget also provides the military with the necessary flexibility 
to react to changing threats and to make additional investments as 
necessary in a way that does not add to overspending.
  Not only does this send a message to our troops that they will have 
the support they need in order to do the job they volunteered to do but 
also to our families, our military families who serve as well in our 
all-volunteer military system.
  This prioritization of national security also sends a very important 
message to our Nation's adversaries. We know that weakness is a 
provocation to the bullies and the tyrants around the world. When 
people such as Vladimir Putin see the United States retreating, pulling 
back, not prioritizing our national security, and not maintaining our 
role in the world as a preeminent power, it is a provocation and it is 
an encouragement. We see that happening around the world as we see now 
a greater security threat environment than perhaps we have seen in 
many, many years. But this budget sends a message to our adversaries 
around the world that America will not shrink and will not retreat from 
our leadership role.
  The budget under consideration was passed just a few days ago in the 
House of Representatives because it serves the American people by 
providing for our national defense and balancing the budget within 10 
years. And it doesn't raise taxes--something Congress hasn't done for 
almost 15 years.
  This afternoon, the Senate will keep its part of the bargain. We will 
follow through on our promise, and we will make clear to the American 
people that we are committed to getting our fiscal house in order with 
this important first step.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, a budget is far more than a series of 
numbers on a piece of paper. A budget really is a statement of values 
and priorities, a statement of the kind of Nation we are and the kind 
of Nation we want to be.
  For many of us, these values and priorities are clear. We believe 
that a budget should help us move toward an economy that is built from 
the middle out--not from the top down--and a government that works for 
all of our families--not just the wealthiest few. But the Republican 
budget that we are here debating today would move us in the opposite 
direction.
  Instead of working with us to build on the bipartisan budget deal we 
struck last Congress, Republicans have introduced a budget that would 
lock in sequestration. It would hollow out defense and nondefense 
investments and use gimmicks and games to paper over the problems.
  Instead of putting jobs, wages, and economic security first by 
prioritizing policies such as paid sick leave, which shouldn't be 
partisan issues, the Republican budget would cut taxes for the rich and 
leave working families behind. Instead of building on the work we have 
done to make health care more affordable and accessible, the Republican 
budget would take us back to the bad old days when insurance companies 
called all the shots and when fewer Americans had access to the care 
they need.
  I will take a few minutes today to talk about each of these issues 
and to urge my Republican friends to take a different approach, to put 
politics aside, to come back to the table, and to work with us on a 
responsible budget that puts the middle class first and will actually 
work for families and communities that we all represent.
  The first issue I want to talk about is the automatic cuts from 
sequestration and the failure of this budget to address an issue 
Democrats and Republicans agree needs to be solved.
  I am proud that coming out of the terrible government shutdown at the 
end of 2013, we were finally able to break through the gridlock and 
dysfunction to reach a bipartisan budget deal that prevented another 
government shutdown, restored investments in education, in research, 
and in defense jobs and really laid down a foundation for continued 
bipartisan work.
  That deal wasn't the budget I would have written on my own, and it 
wasn't the one Republicans would have written on their own, but it did 
end the lurching from crisis to crisis. It helped workers and our 
economy and made it clear that there is bipartisan support for rolling 
back sequestration in a balanced way.
  Our bipartisan deal was a strong step in the right direction, and I 
was hopeful that we could work together to build on it, because we know 
there is bipartisan support to replace sequestration in a balanced and 
fair way.
  Not only did we prove that with our bipartisan budget deal, but 
Democrats and Republicans across the country have continued to come out 
against the senseless cuts to defense and nondefense investments. But 
Republicans

[[Page 6190]]

went the opposite way with their budget this year.
  They were able to cut trillions of dollars of programs that support 
families and fight poverty--nearly $1 trillion cut from Medicare and 
Medicaid and more than $5 trillion overall. But they refused to 
dedicate a single penny of that to roll back the automatic cuts to 
education, research or defense investments.
  To put that in perspective, we were able to roll back sequestration 
for 2 years in the Bipartisan Budget Act with $85 billion in savings. 
But the Republican budget won't fix the problem even for this coming 
year with more than 50 times that amount of savings.
  Instead of using just a tiny fraction of the enormous cuts this 
budget has in it to pay for investments that both Republicans and 
Democrats agree must be made, this budget uses a gimmick by increasing 
OCO funding to appear to patch over the problem on the defense side 
without raising the cap on defense funding and doing nothing at all for 
nondefense investments such as education, research, jobs, and 
infrastructure.
  We know the automatic cuts are terrible policy, and we know the 
President has said he would veto spending bills at sequester levels. I 
also know there are Republicans who have seen the impact of 
sequestration in their States, as I have seen it in my State of 
Washington, and I know there are Republicans who look at this budget 
and wonder why it couldn't use some of the trillions of dollars in cuts 
to reinvest in American innovation or in our defense investments.
  So I am hopeful that instead of continuing to kick the can down the 
road or relying on gimmicks that don't actually solve this problem, 
Republicans will come back to the table and work with us to build on 
our bipartisan budget deal in a balanced and responsible way, will 
allow the Appropriations subcommittees to actually do their work and 
not wait for another crisis before they push the tea party aside and 
work with us to get this done.
  Instead of rehashing old debates and lurching us toward another 
completely avoidable crisis, we should be working together to put in 
place policies that boost the economy and help our working families--
policies such as allowing workers to earn paid sick days. No worker 
should have to sacrifice a day's pay or their job altogether just to 
take care of themselves or their sick child. But today, in this 
country, 43 million Americans do not have access to paid sick days.
  Making sure more workers have this basic worker protection will give 
more families some much-needed economic stability. And, by the way, it 
is pro-business. Access to paid sick days boosts productivity, and it 
reduces turnover--two huge benefits for employers.
  Businesses that want to help their workers stay healthy should have a 
level playing field so they aren't at a disadvantage when they do the 
right thing. A strong bipartisan majority of Senators affirmed their 
support for allowing workers to earn paid sick days during the budget 
amendment process, and I was hopeful we could build on that momentum 
and keep working together to increase the economic security for 
millions of workers and families.
  So I was very disappointed that the conference report does not 
reflect that provision. Instead of keeping our bipartisan amendment and 
providing paid sick days to help workers and families, this conference 
report instead allows for tax credits for employers that would not 
guarantee access to paid leave. That is a step in the wrong direction. 
But it doesn't have to be the last step this Congress takes.
  So I urge our colleagues to work with me to pass the Healthy Families 
Act, legislation that would move this debate beyond budget amendments 
and make paid sick days a reality for millions of Americans. Allowing 
workers to earn paid sick days is one way we can ensure our workplaces 
are working for all families--not just the wealthiest few.
  I also want to talk about one more way this budget would be 
devastating for families across the country. The Affordable Care Act 
was a critical step forward in our efforts to build a health care 
system that puts patients first, and it allows every family to get the 
affordable, high quality health care they need. But the work didn't end 
when this law passed--far from it.
  Families across the country are expecting us to keep working to build 
on this progress and continue making health care more affordable, more 
accessible, and with higher quality, and that is what Democrats are 
focused on. Unfortunately, this Republican budget would do the exact 
opposite. It would roll back all the progress we have made, take us 
back to the bad old days when insurance companies called all the shots, 
when being a woman was a preexisting condition, when far fewer families 
could afford to get the health care they need. In fact, this Republican 
approach could even mean an average tax hike of $3,200 a year on 
working families who would have to pay more for their care.
  Families are tired of Republicans playing games with their health 
care. So I hope my Republican colleagues will listen to the millions of 
people across the country who have more affordable, quality health care 
and to the vast majority of our constituents, who want us to work 
together to solve problems and not rehash old fights, and that they 
will finally drop the political games and work with us to move our 
health care system forward--not backward--for the communities we serve.
  Republicans control Congress. It is their job to write and pass a 
budget. But our constituents actually sent us here to work together--
not simply to argue with each other. People across the country are 
expecting us to break through the gridlock once again, like we were 
able to do last Congress, and deliver results for their families and 
the communities we represent.
  So I urge my colleagues to oppose this budget that would be 
devastating to middle-class families, seniors, investments in our 
future, and the economy. I really hope that Republicans decide to come 
back to the table and work with us on policies that grow the economy 
from the middle out--not from the top down--and that moves us towards a 
government that works for all families--not just the wealthiest few.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Enzi and members of the 
Budget Committee for the 2016 budget conference agreement that we are 
currently considering in the Senate. Included in the budget conference 
agreement are policy provisions that I believe begin to move this 
country in the right fiscal direction, including balancing the budget 
within 10 years without the need to raise taxes on the hardworking 
American taxpayer--something the administration's budget fails to do. 
In addition, the budget agreement provides a pathway to repeal the 
failed policies of ObamaCare.
  I am pleased the resolution does provide some relief from 
sequestration's devastating cuts to our national defense. The good news 
is that there is some relief. Providing additional resources for 
defense through the Overseas Contingency Operations account, known as 
OCO, is a good one, but it is temporary and it is a Band-Aid.
  Again, I thank Senator Enzi for the great job he has done, but the 
fact is that this body and this Congress is guilty--is guilty--of not 
repealing sequestration, which is devastating our military and 
destroying our ability to defend this Nation in these most perilous and 
difficult times.
  Before the Senate Armed Services Committee on January 29, former 
Secretary of State Henry Kissinger testified:

       As we look around the world, we encounter upheaval and 
     conflict. The United States has not faced a more diverse and 
     complex array of crises since the end of the Second World 
     War.

  What are we doing? We are slashing defense year after year through 
something called sequestration, which was never intended to happen. 
That is a devastating indictment of the Congress

[[Page 6191]]

of the United States in our first priority, which is protecting this 
nation.
  Gen. Mark Welsh, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, stated:

       We are now the smallest Air Force we've ever been. When we 
     deployed to Operation Desert Storm in 1990, the Air Force had 
     188 fighter squadrons. Today, we have 54, and we're headed to 
     49 in the next couple of years. In 1990, there were 511,000 
     active duty airmen alone. Today, we have 200,000 fewer. . . . 
     We currently have 12 fleets of airplanes that qualify for 
     antique license plates in the state of Virginia.

  General Odierno, Chief of Staff of the Army, said:

       In the last three years, the Army's active component and 
     strength has been reduced by 80,000; the reserve component by 
     18,000. We have 13 less active component brigade combat 
     teams. We've eliminated three active aviation brigades. . . . 
     We have already slashed investments in modernization by 25 
     percent.

  He went on to say:

       The number one thing that keeps me up at night is that if 
     we're asked to respond to an unknown contingency, I will send 
     soldiers to that contingency not properly trained and ready. 
     We simply are not used to doing that.

  Admiral Greenert, the Chief Of Naval Operations:

       [D]ue to sequestration of 2013, our contingency response 
     force, that's what's on call from the United States, is one-
     third of what it should be and what it needs to be.

  Gen. Joseph Dunford, Commandant of the Marine Corps, now nominated to 
be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Of Staff, testified:

       We're investing in modernization at a historically low 
     level. We know that we must maintain at least 10 percent to 
     12 percent of our resources on modernization to field a ready 
     force for tomorrow. To pay today's bills, we're currently 
     investing 7 percent to 8 percent.

  I asked every single one of our service chiefs and our area 
commanders the same question: If we do not repeal sequestration, will 
it put the lives of our men and women who are serving in the military 
in greater danger? The answer by every single one of these uniformed 
leaders--not just civilian leaders--was, yes, we will put the lives of 
the men and women who are serving in the military in greater danger 
unless we repeal sequestration on defense.
  I say to my colleagues of the United States Senate, this is not 
acceptable. It is not acceptable for us to ask the young men and women 
who are serving in our military in uniform to put their lives in 
greater danger because we copped out, we failed to address the issue of 
increasing an unsustainable deficit. We are making them pay the price.
  Thirteen percent of the budget is allocated to defense; defense is 
taking 50 percent of the cuts.
  The Ryan-Murray agreement was something that was welcomed. We need 
another Ryan-Murray. We need the men and women who are serving as 
Members of Congress to understand that we have no greater 
responsibility than the defense of this Nation.
  I can assure my colleagues that, working with my friend Senator Reed 
of Rhode Island, the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, we will be working. We will reduce waste and mismanagement. 
We will address acquisition. We will reform acquisition and the 
terrible cost overruns that plague our ability to do business in the 
defense business. We will be cutting the size of these huge staffs that 
have grown and grown. We will be making significant reforms in the way 
the military does business, but these reforms will not have the impact 
that is necessary in the short term, and that is that we are putting 
the lives of American soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen in greater 
danger.
  I come to the floor to thank my colleague from Wyoming, Senator Enzi, 
for the great job he has done on this budget. But I would tell my 
colleagues that we must work together in a bipartisan fashion to fix 
the damage sequestration is doing.
  I will only add one other point that is very important. Some of us 
have forgotten that in the days after the Vietnam war, the military was 
in terrible disarray. Ronald Reagan came to the Presidency on the 
slogan ``Peace through strength.'' We rebuilt the military. We put it 
back in the condition of being the greatest military and effective 
force in the world, and we won the Cold War.
  Right now, if you look at a map of the world in 2011 and look at a 
map of the world today--in 2011 when we enacted sequestration--you will 
find that Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, Madeleine Albright, Brent 
Scowcroft, and every person who is respected on national security in 
this country will tell you that we are in grave danger. Whether it be 
from ISIS, whether it be from Iran, whether it be aggressive behavior 
by the Chinese--no matter what it is, there are severe crises, no 
matter where it is in the world. We are in the midst of serious 
challenges to our national security, and the last place--the last 
place--we should continue to cut is on our defense and capability to 
defend this nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I first wish to thank the distinguished 
Senator from Arizona for his leadership and echo his words that we need 
a bipartisan solution on this issue, and hopefully we will be able to 
address it, not only supporting our men and women when they are 
actively in harm's way but supporting them as veterans, which I know he 
cares deeply about as well. That is why we need a bipartisan and 
balanced solution like we had before. I thank the Senator for his 
leadership.
  Mr. President, the reality is that this budget--any budget for the 
United States--is about our values and our priorities. That is what it 
is all about as a country. I have to say, as a senior member of the 
Budget Committee, I am deeply concerned about the values portrayed in 
this budget. I greatly respect the chairman and ranking member and 
thank them for their service, but when we look at this budget in total, 
this goes opposite to what the majority of Members talk about every day 
because this particular budget keeps the system rigged in favor of the 
wealthy and well-connected against the interests of hard-working, 
middle-class Americans.
  Picture this: In this budget, if you are a family with assets of $10 
million or more, you hit the jackpot: You get at least a $3 million 
bonus tax cut in this bill, in terms of the policies laid out in the 
bill. How is it paid for? It is paid for by everybody else. Sixteen 
million hard-working Americans will see a tax increase of at least $900 
based on these policies. We will see critical investments and services 
cut. There is nothing done to address jobs going overseas. There is not 
one loophole proposed to be closed that is sending our jobs overseas. 
We want to create an economy and really balance the budget? Let's bring 
those jobs home. There is nothing in this budget about that. If you 
have wealth of over $10 million, it is your lucky day--$3 million or 
more in your pocket. There is Christmas in this budget for very wealthy 
multimillionaires, but if you are everybody else, you are in trouble.
  There is no focus on creating jobs. And God help you if your family 
has a mom or dad or grandpa or grandma who has Alzheimer's disease and 
is in a nursing home because this budget guts nursing home care for 
millions of Americans, a lot of folks who desperately need that care.
  One out of five Medicare dollars today goes to treat Alzheimer's. 
This is an area I have been deeply involved in and I am partnering with 
Senator Susan Collins on, important work that needs to be done. But if 
you have someone who has Alzheimer's disease and who needs long-term 
care, you are out of luck in this budget.
  This morning, I talked to a group of women who are in town for breast 
cancer research. This is the month that focuses on breast cancer 
research. If you care about breast cancer research, in this budget, you 
are out of luck. If you want to make sure we are investing in cures and 
treatments--we are now so close in so many areas. American research, 
innovation, and the best minds in the world are working on 
opportunities to us to solve Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease and 
cancers and all kinds of other areas of concern. But the budget is cut 
for NIH, the National Institutes of Health. What kinds of priorities 
does this reflect?

[[Page 6192]]

  On top of that, for 16.4 million people who now have affordable 
insurance, it will be gone.
  What is interesting about the budget is it is very creative because 
all the revenue, all the fees to pay for health care stay to help 
balance the budget; it is the health care that goes away. So for those 
breast cancer patients whom I talked to this morning who are now so 
grateful that if they need go out and get new insurance, they will not 
be called someone with a pre-existing condition, that goes away in this 
budget.
  If you have a child who is 22, 23, just graduated--I spoke at 
graduation ceremonies this last weekend--and they are on your insurance 
right now while they are trying to get themselves together and get that 
first job, that goes away.
  This budget attacks health care, which, by the way, is not a frill. 
We do not control when and how we get sick or if our children get sick 
or if our parents or grandparents need a nursing home or what may 
happen in terms of medical issues in our families, but health care is 
directly attacked. The Affordable Care Act--gone. Gutting inpatient 
care in nursing homes for Alzheimer's patients and others. Research--
gone.
  We are hearing from our Republican friends that they are making 
government work. But I will tell you what--it is not working for 
middle-class families. It is working for you if you are making over $10 
million a year or have more than $10 million in assets, but it is not 
working for you if you are holding down two or three jobs and you are 
just trying to make it for your family.
  We believe as Democrats that this ought to be a middle-class budget 
because everybody deserves a fair shot to get ahead and have a chance 
to have a better future. For us, that means this budget should have a 
major focus on creating millions of jobs by rebuilding our roads, 
rebuilding our bridges, our infrastructure.
  By the way, the funding for that--the authorization for the highway 
trust fund--runs out at the end of May. There is nothing in here to 
address that, no funding in here to address that. We are going to see 
all kinds of jobs eliminated all across the country if that funding is 
eliminated. We believe in rebuilding our roads and bridges and creating 
millions of jobs.
  We stand up for Social Security and Medicare. This budget has $430 
billion in cuts to Medicare, and it doesn't say where they come from. 
It is proposing a structure that would actually eliminate Medicare as 
we know it and turn it into some kind of a voucher system or some other 
kind of system that is not guaranteed care under Medicare. We believe 
in protecting Medicare and Social Security.
  We believe everybody ought to have a fair chance to work hard and 
make it and go to college. This does nothing but increase costs for 
students going to college. We believe costs ought to go down so that 
when students leave college, they do not end up with so much debt that 
they cannot go out and buy a house. People cannot buy a house, as 
realtors in Michigan have told me, because they have so much debt. They 
cannot qualify to get a loan for a house or to start a new business.
  We, as Democrats, want to make sure everybody has a chance to go to 
college, that it is affordable, that we are protecting Social Security 
and Medicare, and that we are creating jobs, rebuilding our roads and 
our highways and the opportunity to invest in America.
  Finally, we want to bring jobs home. It is insane that we still have 
a Tax Code that rewards those--sometimes only on paper--who leave this 
country. They still breathe the air, drink the water, drive on the 
roads, they just don't have to pay their fair share of taxes as 
businesses because on paper they are based somewhere else. That is not 
fair to every small business in Michigan that is working hard every 
day. It is not fair to every taxpayer across this country and every 
business we have that is really an American business. There is nothing 
in this budget which addresses that.
  I conclude by saying we should resoundingly object and vote no on the 
priorities and the values set out in this budget. They do not reflect 
what is good to create and grow a middle class and create opportunity 
in this country.
  If you are one of the privileged few, hallelujah. Break out the 
champagne after this passes. But if you are the majority of Americans, 
hold on to your seats and put on your seatbelt, because if this is, in 
fact, put into place, it will be a rough ride for America. Our side is 
going to do everything humanly possible to make sure that does not 
happen.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my great colleague from Michigan 
for her outstanding words and leadership. She is a senior member of the 
Budget Committee. She knows just what is wrong with this budget and she 
knows how to reach the American people in terms of revealing and 
showing just that. I thank her.
  I thank my dear friend Senator Sanders, a fellow graduate of James 
Madison High School in Brooklyn, for his great leadership on the Budget 
Committee as well.
  Look, in a certain sense, this Republican budget is a gift to us and 
to the American people because it shows their real priorities, and 
their priorities are so far away from what average Americans want that 
this budget will resound from one end of the country to the other 
between now and November of 2016.
  The budget the House and Senate Republicans have put together helps 
the very wealthy and powerful in our country who, frankly, don't need 
any help. This idea that cutting taxes on the very wealthy will somehow 
make America a better place, how many Americans actually believe that? 
We understand a lot of our colleagues do. They hang out with these 
people, I guess. But that is not what most Americans think, that is for 
sure.
  The budget should reflect the economic reality right now. Middle-
class incomes are declining. It is harder to stay in the middle class. 
It is harder to reach the middle class. A budget should help those 
folks who are in the middle class stay there, and it should help those 
who are trying to get to the middle class create ladders so they can 
get there.
  Again, this budget seems to focus all of its attention and all of its 
goodies on the very wealthy. The economy is getting stronger but mainly 
at the very high end. So we need to cut their taxes because they are 
hurting? And at the same time we need to raise taxes on 16 million 
Americans who are working and making $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 a year--
raise their taxes by $900? How many Americans would say we should cut 
taxes on the 4,000 wealthiest people an average of $3 million, at the 
cost of $260 billion over 10 years, and raise taxes by $900 on people 
making $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 a year? Is it 1 percent of America who 
thinks that way? Maybe. But it seems our colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle followed that Pied Piper, that 1 percent, in putting 
together their budget. It makes no sense.
  The Republican budget is a document of willful ignorance. It was 
constructed in an ideological house of mirrors where no one sees 
reality. No one who put together this budget sees any reality. They 
don't see middle-class people struggling.
  Making it harder to pay for college? What the heck is going on here 
in this great America? Our colleagues are trying to pass a budget that 
says we should make it harder to pay for college, that veterans should 
lose food stamps--veterans, the people who served us. I am sure the 
vast majority of them are looking for jobs and income. That is who 
veterans are. They don't want a handout. But when they are down on 
their luck--maybe they had injuries, maybe it was rough adjusting to 
family life back home again--you cut their food stamps? Wow. What kind 
of budget is this? As I said, it is a budget in an ideological house of 
mirrors.
  Cap student loan payments? There are 30- and 40-year-olds with huge 
burdens of debt. They cannot even buy a home. Maybe they even put off 
having kids. In this budget, our Republican friends are saying we 
should eliminate

[[Page 6193]]

and cut programs so we can reduce some of that debt burden. Wow. What 
world are you folks living in? It sure isn't the world of reality. It 
is an ideological house of mirrors. It is a budget document of willful 
ignorance.
  I could go on and on and on with this budget. How many families have 
elderly parents in nursing homes who have Alzheimer's? We know that 
tragedy. This budget makes it harder for those people to stay in those 
nursing homes by cutting Medicaid, which many of them are on. And then 
these young families are going to have the burden of taking their dear 
parents, their loved ones, back into their homes. Do we want that?
  Well, you say, we have to cut somewhere. How about not giving the 
4,000 richest families $260 billion over 10 years and putting some of 
the money into cancer research, putting some of the money into helping 
veterans feed themselves, putting some of the money into helping make 
it easier to pay for college?
  Republicans are going to have to figure out a way to convince the 
American people that they are doing something, anything, to help the 
middle class. So far they are striking out.
  There is only one bit of good news. Our colleagues, when they are 
forced to actually put real numbers to these budget numbers in the 
appropriations process, will not be able to do it. They will not dare 
do it. I hope--this will be up to our ranking member Senator Mikulski 
and the members of our Appropriations Committee--they take this budget 
and actually craft it into the appropriations bill and put it out 
there, and let's see how many of our colleagues actually vote for it.
  How many of our colleagues will vote to make it harder to pay for 
college? How many of our colleagues will make it harder for veterans to 
feed themselves when they are out of luck? How many of our colleagues 
will vote to raise taxes by $900 on people making $30,000, $40,000 a 
year? I doubt many.
  This is a fun day for our Republican colleagues. They get to beat 
their ideological breasts, show the hard right they really mean it, and 
then maybe we can go back to governing the country and helping the 
middle class.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I wish to speak as well about the budget 
that is before the Senate. I want to point out something I believe the 
Senator from New York failed to mention in his comments. We are 
actually doing a budget. That is what is pretty historic about this.
  A few years back, I got on the Budget Committee because I thought it 
would be the place where a lot of action was going to occur and where 
we were going to be doing big, consequential things for the country. I 
asked our leaders, when they made committee assignments, if I could 
serve on the Budget Committee. I served on the Budget Committee for 4 
years. In the 4 years I was on the Budget Committee, when the Democrats 
controlled this Chamber, we did not write a budget--not a single year. 
It was like being on a committee that was completely irrelevant around 
here. We did not do a budget for 4 years. This year, we are finally 
going to pass a budget. They only did do one in 2009 so they could pass 
ObamaCare with 51 votes.
  The last time we actually had a 10-year balanced budget was in 2001. 
So we are talking about something that is pretty historic. This is the 
first time this has happened in 14 years. I will repeat that. The last 
time Congress passed a joint 10-year balanced budget resolution was 14 
years ago, in 2001--the year Apple released the first iPod.
  This year, the President has, once again, proposed a budget that 
never balances--not in 10 years, not in 25 years, not ever. When the 
other side gets up and talks about the Republican budget and attacks 
it, at least Republicans in this Chamber recognize the importance of 
having a budget and putting in place a pathway, if you will, for how we 
are going to get the fiscal situation of this country in a better 
place, and it sets out our priorities because that is really what the 
budget process does. It says this is what we are for.
  What the Democrats argue--and we heard the Senator from New York 
making the argument--is that we are not spending enough and that this 
is about spending more. I believe the American people realize that if 
we want to solve middle-class wage stagnation--they talk about the 
middle-class wages being lower, and they are lower. They have been 
significantly lower since this President took office. As I was saying, 
if we want to solve middle-class wage stagnation, we have to have an 
expanding economy.
  The way to help people into a better place economically and to raise 
the income of people in this country is to get a growing, vibrant, 
robust, expanding economy that is growing at a faster rate than the 
anemic 1- to 2-percent growth we have seen in the last few years. The 
way we achieve that is not by growing the government. It is not about 
growing the government. We have to grow the economy. When the economy 
is growing, that is when we start to see people in this country, 
middle-class income families, benefit.
  As I said, the President proposed a budget that never balanced, and 
he proposed increasing spending by a staggering 65 percent over the 
next 10 years. I don't need to tell the American people that kind of 
spending is unsustainable. For too long the attitude in Washington has 
been to spend now, pay later. That only works for so long. Sooner or 
later your spending catches up with you.
  Six years ago, when the President took office, our national debt was 
already a massive $10.6 trillion. Over the past 6 years, during the 
President's administration, our national debt has increased by more 
than $7.5 trillion, and today it is at a dangerously high $18.2 
trillion. That is the size of our economy. In fact, that is larger than 
our economy. That is a 1-to-1 ratio. That kind of debt slows economic 
growth, threatens government programs, such as Social Security and 
Medicare, and jeopardizes our Nation's future.
  In 2011, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ADM Mike Mullen, 
the highest ranking military official in our country, said, ``I've said 
many times that I believe the single, biggest threat to our national 
security is our debt.'' I have heard him say that. I served on the 
Armed Services Committee for 6 years. I heard the chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs say that repeatedly in front of committees at various hearings 
and at various times. That is quite a statement from the country's top-
ranking military official: the greatest threat to our national security 
is our debt.
  If we keep racking up our debt the way we have been doing, we will 
not be able to pay for our priorities, such as Social Security, 
Medicare, national defense, and infrastructure. All of those priorities 
could face huge cuts if we don't get our Nation on a sound fiscal 
footing.
  When the Republicans took control of the Senate in January, we were 
determined to get Washington working again. We knew that one of the 
most important steps in that process was passing a balanced budget 
resolution. Republicans understand what every American family knows; 
that you cannot keep racking up debt indefinitely and that the solution 
to being in debt is not to increase spending.
  In March, we introduced a budget blueprint that would balance the 
budget in 10 years and put our Nation on a path to fiscal health. House 
Republicans introduced a similar balanced budget resolution. During the 
month of April, the two Houses came together to iron out the 
differences in our blueprints and produced the final document that we 
will be voting on today.
  It is not a perfect document. It does not solve every one of our 
Nation's problems, but at long last it gets us moving in a different 
direction--in the right direction. Instead of ignoring our Nation's 
fiscal problems, the Republicans' budget resolution addresses them and 
promotes spending restraint.
  Under our budget blueprint, by the time the 10-year budget closes in 
2025, our Nation will be running a surplus of $24 billion instead of 
racking up another $1.5 trillion in deficits every single year. Unlike 
some budget plans, our

[[Page 6194]]

budget will continue to balance in 2026 and beyond.
  In addition to restraining spending, the Republicans' budget 
resolution focuses on cutting waste and eliminating the inefficiency 
and redundancy that plagues so many government programs. Our budget 
also puts in place reforms that will encourage honest accounting. The 
result of these provisions will be a more efficient, effective, and 
accountable government that works for the American people.
  Our budget also, as I said, makes a healthy economy a priority. 
Almost 6 years after the recession has ended, millions of Americans are 
still struggling and opportunities for advancement are still few and 
far between. A big reason for that is the oppressive, big-government 
policies and deficit spending of the Obama administration. Our budget 
will help stop government from strangling the economy by limiting the 
growth of spending and reducing the debt, which will help reduce the 
cost of work and investment and the cost of starting and growing a 
business. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that our 
budget will result in an additional $400 billion in economic growth 
over the next 10 years.
  The Republicans' budget will also pave the way for the removal of 
inefficient and ineffective government regulations that are making it 
difficult for many businesses to hire new workers and create new 
opportunities and higher paying jobs.
  Our budget also addresses another priority of American families, and 
that is fixing our Nation's broken health care system. Now 5 years on, 
the President's health care law has resulted in higher costs, lost 
health care plans, reduced access to doctors, and new burdens on 
businesses, both large and small. In fact, it has been pretty much one 
disaster after another.
  Just this week, a USA TODAY headline announced that ``contrary to 
goals, ER visits rise under ObamaCare.'' The article says: ``Three-
quarters of emergency physicians say they've seen ER patient visits 
surge since ObamaCare took effect--just the opposite of what many 
Americans expected would happen.'' That is from the USA TODAY article. 
Of course, as we know, ER visits are our most expensive form of health 
care.
  It is no surprise that the majority of the American people continue 
to oppose the law. Our budget paves the way for a repeal of ObamaCare 
and the introduction of real, patient-centered health care reforms that 
will give Americans more health care choices at a lower cost.
  Finally, our budget will start the process of putting major 
entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare on a sounder 
footing going forward. Right now, the Social Security trust fund is 
headed toward bankruptcy. If we don't take action, Social Security 
recipients could be facing a 25-percent cut in benefits by the year 
2033. Medicare faces similar challenges to those faced by Social 
Security. Under the worst-case scenario, the Medicare trust fund could 
become insolvent by as early as 2021. That is just 6 short years away. 
The Republican budget would help preserve Medicare by extending the 
trust fund's solvency for an additional 5 years, which would protect 
retirees' benefits while giving policymakers additional time to ensure 
that this program provides support to seniors for decades to come.
  I am proud that today the Republicans in Congress will ensure that we 
have a joint balanced budget resolution for the first time in 14 years, 
but I also wish to emphasize that is no more than what the American 
people should expect. The American people, after all, have to live 
within a budget; their government needs to do so as well.
  Going forward, balanced budgets need to be the norm here in Congress. 
Washington has spent enough time working for its own interests. It is 
time to get Washington working again for American families.
  This is the first time in 14 years that we have actually had a budget 
resolution and a conference report that balance within 10 years. As I 
said earlier, during my time here in the Senate, which hasn't been that 
long but about 10 years now, this is the first time--with the exception 
of 2009, in which we did a budget simply so the Democrats could pass 
ObamaCare through reconciliation--this is the first time we have done a 
budget that passed both chambers in the 10 years I have been here, with 
the exception perhaps of the first few years.
  It is time to get Washington working again for the American people. 
It starts with passing the budget. That is why I am proud that Senator 
Enzi and others worked hard to get us where we are. I hope today we 
will ultimately have the votes necessary to pass this and do something 
which hasn't been done around here in a very long time but which is 
really essential for the good of the American people in this country.

                          ____________________