[Pages S2202-S2212]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

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

Motion to Instruct

Mr. SANDERS. I send to the desk my motion to instruct conferees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the
pending motion?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] moves that the
managers on the part of the Senate at the conference on
the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House
amendment to the resolution S. Con. Res. 11 be instructed
to insist that the final conference report include the
provision in the concurrent resolution as agreed to by the
Senate that provides for the establishment of a deficit-
neutral reserve fund related to strengthening the United
States Postal Service by establishing a moratorium to
protect mail processing plants, reinstating overnight
delivery standards, protecting rural service, allowing the
Postal Service to innovate and adapt to compete in a
digital age, or improving the financial condition of the
Postal Service.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I move to instruct conferees on S. Con.
Res. 11, a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2016, to
include in the conference report the provision in the concurrent
resolution as passed by the Senate establishing a deficit-neutral
reserve fund related to strengthening the U.S. Postal Service by
establishing a moratorium to protect mail processing plants,
reinstating overnight delivery standards, and protecting rural
services.
During the so-called vote-arama, that amendment passed by voice vote.
This time I hope we can get a strong rollcall vote on it because it is
terribly important that we tell the Postmaster General of the United
States that the U.S. Senate wants a strong and vibrant U.S. Postal
Service.
What we are saying to the Postmaster General of the United States is
pretty simple; that is, do not destroy up to 15,000 middle-class jobs,
do not shut down up to 82 mail processing plants, stop slowing down
mail service delivery in this country. Speed it up by reinstating
strong overnight delivery standards for first-class mail.
I do not know about Arizona and I don't know about Wyoming, but I can
tell you that in Vermont we have gotten a significant number of
complaints from people who are upset by the slowdown of mail delivery
standards. It is, to my mind, just unacceptable, and what we are saying
now and will have to say in the months to come is you can't shut down
another 82 processing plants, you cannot continue with these inadequate
mail delivery standards, and it has to change. The American people and
the business community are entitled to know that when they put a letter
or document in the mail, it is going to get delivered in a prompt way.
Today, that, sadly, is not the case.
For over 230 years and enshrined in our Constitution, the Postal
Service has played an enormously important role for the people of our
country and for our economy, and that mission today remains as
important as it has ever been. The beauty of the Postal Service is that
it provides universal service 6 days a week to every corner of our
country, no matter how small or how remote. It will deliver mail on
Wall Street and it will deliver mail to a home at the end of a back
road in the State of Vermont.
The U.S. Postal Service supports, through its efforts, millions of
jobs in virtually every sector of our economy. It provides decent-
paying union jobs to some 500,000 Americans and, by the way, is the
largest employer of veterans in this country.
Whether you are an elderly woman living on a dirt road in a rural
area or you are a wealthy CEO executive on

[[Page S2203]]

Park Avenue, you get your mail delivered 6 days a week, and the
American people pay for this service at a cost which is far less than
any place else in the industrialized world. In other words, we get a
pretty good bargain when we put a stamp on an envelope.
Unfortunately, despite the success and popularity of the Postal
Service, it is under constant attack and has been under constant attack
for years, including from those who would like to privatize the Postal
Service and ultimately destroy it. Let's be clear. The same people who
are attacking the Postal Service are often the same people who are
attacking Social Security, Medicare, and so forth, and they essentially
want to move to the privatization of virtually every major public
institution in this country.
Today, the U.S. Postal Service is in the process of shutting down up
to 82 mail processing plants and eliminating up to 15,000 decent-paying
jobs. This is in addition to the 141 mail processing facilities that
were closed between 2012 and 2013. In January, the Postal Service ended
overnight delivery for first-class mail. It didn't get a whole lot of
attention, but it happened.
The purpose of this motion is to put the Senate on record in strong
opposition to these plant closings and to demand that the Postal
Service reinstate strong overnight delivery standards and not destroy
good-paying jobs.
We have been told that all of these horrendous cuts are necessary
because the Postal Service is experiencing terrible financial problems.
They are losing money every single year. Well, the truth is somewhat
different. The major reason the Postal Service is in tough financial
shape today is not because of email or the Internet, the major reason
the Postal Service is hurting financially is because of a mandate
signed into law by President Bush in December of 2006, during a
lameduck session of Congress that forces the Postal Service to prefund
75 years of future retiree health benefits over a 10-year period. No
other government agency or business in America is burdened with a
mandate anywhere close to what the Postal Service has to expend, which
is $5.5 billion a year. So the main point is that when you see articles
telling you the Postal Service is having financial problems, the main
reason--the overwhelming reason--is this necessity to prefund 75 years
of future retiring health benefits over a 10-year period at about $5.5
billion a year. In fact, all--A-L-L--all of the so-called financial
losses posted by the Postal Service since October 2012 are due to this
prefunding mandate. That is it. Without that mandate, they would be
making a modest amount of money.
We don't hear much about it, but I think it is very important for the
American people to understand the reality of the finances in the Postal
Service. Excluding the prefunding mandate, the Postal Service has
actually made a $1.8 billion profit. So it is a modestly profitable
operation excluding the $5.5 billion prefunding mandate.
Revenue at the Postal Service has been increasing in recent years. At
a time when Postal Service revenue is going up, it makes no sense to
eliminate thousands of jobs and slow down the mail service that
millions of Americans rely on.
We should be working to strengthen the Postal Service and not to send
it into a death spiral. Before this prefunding mandate was signed into
law, the Postal Service was also profitable. In fact, from 2003 to
2006, the Postal Service made a combined profit of more than $5
billion.
I think there is broad bipartisan support, especially from Senators
who come from rural areas and who understand just how important the
Postal Service is to the people of our States.
Once again, when offered as an amendment at the vote-arama, this
passed by voice vote. We are going to ask for a rollcall vote when the
voting takes place. I hope we win this vote with a very strong vote and
send a message to the Postal Service that we want our Postal Service to
provide the quality mail service the American people deserve.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, that passed by a voice vote, which is
considered unanimous around here. You cannot get more unanimous than
that. I am hoping that out of the 10 to 13 votes we are going to have
this afternoon, that some can be done on voice votes. I do not think
there is anybody who disagrees with what the Senator has said about
closing the postal plants and the extra time it is taking for
deliveries. You can add to that how little money it saves because the
employees who are in one town, even though their job got moved
somewhere else, still have to be retained in that town at some job. It
does not amount to much in the way of savings, but it really hurts in
the way of efficiency, delivery, and trust in the post office.
So I think we will all be behind you on that one again. I hope that
by the time we get to that, it will be a voice vote again.

Motion to Instruct

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

The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Enzi], for Mr. Burr, moves
that the managers on the part of the Senate at the
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on
the House amendment to the resolution S. Con. Res. 11 be
instructed to insist that the final conference report
include a provision relating to addressing student loan
debt, which may include reducing overlapping student loan
repayment programs and creating a simplified income-driven
student loan repayment option, as included in section 358
of S. Con. Res. 11, as agreed to by the Senate.

Mr. ENZI. I would mention that this is a side-by-side to Senator
Warren's amendment. I am hoping that at the time we vote, we can do 1
minute on each side so they have a chance for their explanation.
I now yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

Trade Promotion Authority

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the need for the
Senate to pass trade promotion authority legislation. It is no secret
that trade matters in the ability of the United States and our
businesses here to sell goods to foreign markets and to buy what we
need from abroad to keep our businesses humming along right here at
home and to keep Americans employed. This is paramount to our Nation's
prosperity. You do not need to be an economist to see it. Anyone who
owns an iPhone, drives a foreign car, or shops at Costco--everyone
understands even in a small way that trade is beneficial to American
companies and to customers alike. Likewise, American farmers and
manufacturers and service providers want and need to sell their corn,
cotton, beef, tractors, furniture, airplanes, their businesses and
financial services to customers around the world who want and need
them. Sadly, not all countries see it that way, and they throw up
barriers to American goods and services. They do not want them entering
their countries. That is why passing trade promotion authority is so
important.
Increasing free trade levels the playing field for U.S. companies. It
increases competition. It increases access to foreign markets.
According to the Office of U.S. Trade Representative, the United
States is the world's largest economy, the largest importer, and the
largest exporter of goods and services. In 2014, figures from the
International Trade Administration show that the United States exported
a record $2.35 trillion in goods and services.
For those of us who represent border States, this issue hits close to
home. In recent years, Mexico has been America's third largest trading
partner and our second largest export market. According to the Arizona-
Mexico Commission, Arizona ports of entry are gateways to $41.6 billion
in U.S.-Mexican trade annually, of which nearly $16 billion is
attributed to Arizona's own trade with Mexico.
Simply put, without trade promotion authority, the United States
would be forced to stand on the sidelines as other countries move
forward with their own trade agreements. Without renewing fast-track
authority, there is little chance of a successful resolution of the
ongoing negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP. This
agreement will allow American companies to do business more freely with
some of the world's fastest growing economies.

[[Page S2204]]

As the Washington Post editorial put it this week, ``To this boon to
the U.S. and world economies, add the fact that TPP would ensure that
the Pacific Rim plays by U.S.-style rules and regulations rather than
China's neo-mercantilist rules, and you have a compelling case for
swift approval.'' I agree. But unless we pass trade promotion authority
legislation, it will be difficult for the United States to become part
of this vital partnership.
I am proud to continue to voice my support for free trade. I look
forward to the Senate giving trade promotion authority careful
consideration in the coming weeks.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Motion to Instruct

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
motion be set aside so that I may call up my motion, which is at the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] moves that the
managers on the part of the Senate at the conference on
the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House
amendment to the resolution S. Con. Res. 11 be instructed
to insist that the final conference report include a
provision relating to amending the Equal Pay Act of 1963
to allow for punitive damages, limit the any factor
``other than sex'' exception, and prohibit retaliation
against employees who share salary information, as
included in amendment 362 to S. Con. Res. 11 (as not
agreed to by the Senate).

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to offer a motion to instruct the
conferees based on a bill that I have offered for the last three
Congresses; that is, the Paycheck Fairness Act.
What does the Paycheck Fairness Act do? It finishes the job that we
started with Lilly Ledbetter. It would, in fact, instruct the conferees
to make three reforms:
No. 1, to advance the cause of making sure that women get equal pay
for equal work. It would stop retaliation for sharing pay information.
Often workers are harassed and humiliated just for asking about
coworkers' salaries.
No. 2, it would stop employers from using any reason to pay women
less: Oh, the guys do harder jobs. Women aren't breadwinners. OK, it is
time for equal pay for equal work.
It would also allow for punitive damages for women who are being
discriminated against when the only deterrent against pay
discrimination is the threat of paying women backpay. Discrimination
can be factored into the cost of doing business.
Yesterday was Equal Pay Day, something we, unfortunately, commemorate
each year. It symbolizes that it takes 104 days longer in a year for a
woman to earn what a man earned the previous year.
What does that mean? It means that for what a man earns in 365 days,
it takes a woman 469 days to earn the same amount of money--104 days
more.
We don't commemorate this day with joy but with a call to action. We
need to make a change in the Federal lawbooks to finally get equal pay
in the Federal checkbooks.
Now, we want this in the budget act because we know this will be an
important way of dealing with a variety of issues. We worked on this
legislation for a number of years and, quite frankly, we are
frustrated. We are frustrated that time and again we are trying to
advance this cause.
It started over 50 years ago. In 1963, Lyndon Johnson, moving on the
civil rights legislation, thought that equal pay for women would be an
easy thing to pass. At that time, only 11 percent of mothers were in
the workforce. Now, there are over 70 percent of mothers in the
workforce.
At that time, women were, again, paid 59 cents for every $1 a man
earned. Well, we passed the Civil Rights Act. Now, 50 years later, we
are up to 78 cents for every $1 a man earns. So it has taken us 50
years to advance 20 cents.
Well, that just doesn't work. The women in America feel sidelined,
redlined, and pink-slipped for the way they are discriminated against,
and then they face the harassment and intimidation when they simply ask
questions to get the pay they deserve.
What we now know, again, is that the facts speak for themselves.
Women earn 78 cents for every $1 a man makes. For women close to the
retirement age, the wage gap increases to almost $14,000 a year. By the
time she retires, the average woman has lost almost $400,000 in a
lifetime of wages.
The impact is you get less in Social Security benefits, you have less
in savings, and you face the grim possibility of poverty. What we also
know is that this has a tremendous impact in terms of single mothers.
Over the weekend, there was a terrific article in the Washington Post
saying if you wanted to eliminate poverty among children, you could
take a major step in doing so if you closed the pay parity gap. In
effect, by paying single women and single mothers equal pay for equal
work, you could reduce the poverty rate among children by over 20
percent.
What a startling fact. Well, the fact is that we have been fighting
for this for a long time.
I urge the adoption of this amendment. I think it makes important
fiscal policy, and it is important for the family's checkbook and for
our checkbook.
I wish to close with these remarks. I think it was the day before, in
the New York Times. They were talking about how we are essentially
subsidizing those people who are paid the minimum wage.
Now, my background is that I was a social worker. The Presiding
Officer is familiar with that. But when you look at the four major
components of government subsidies to the poor--Medicaid, TANF, the
child care development subsidy, and there is one other thing that I
just don't recall at this minute--for actually people who are working--
oh, food stamps. Working every single day, they are eligible for
government subsidies because they are not paid enough for what they do.
What we often find is that not only is the minimum wage a terrible
place to begin, but as you move up the work ladder, often women are in
jobs where they are paid less than the men who work beside them. As a
result--and it often is the case--we end, then, by dealing with that by
our paying for it in Medicaid, in food stamps, and earned income tax
credit.
Now, I support those programs. I think when people are poor they need
our help, but our goal is to make sure that if you were poor and you
want to have a way to get ahead, we should help you.
If you want to be middle class, we should help you get there. One of
the ways to do that is to make sure we pay equal pay for equal work.
I hope that my amendment is adopted. I could debate this in more
ways, but year after year we come to the floor and we show the
disparity between what women make from men for the same job.
This isn't just a woman's issue. Many men here support this. I can
tell you who supports it: fathers. Fathers, fathers, fathers. Why do
they support it? They work hard to make sure that in many instances
their daughters get a break, try to get an education, try to get ahead
only to find that although they shouldered the same responsibilities
for car payments, paying off student loans, and all of that, they, in
fact, are not paid equal pay for equal work. We can change that by
voting for the Mikulski amendment in this budget bill.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BENNET. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BENNET. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Motion to Instruct

Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
motion be set aside so that I may call up my motion.

[[Page S2205]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, the clerk will report the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Bennet] moves that the
managers on the part of the Senate at the conference on
the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House
amendment to the resolution S. Con. Res. 11 be
instructed--
(1) to insist that the final conference report include
provisions in the concurrent resolution as agreed to by the
Senate for the establishment of deficit-neutral reserve funds
relating to--
(A) responding to the causes and impacts of climate change,
including the economic and national security threats posed by
human-induced climate change; and
(B) Department of Defense initiatives to bolster resilience
of mission critical department infrastructure to impacts from
climate change; and
(2) to recede from the position of the Senate regarding
provisions in the concurrent resolution as agreed to by the
Senate for the establishment of deficit-neutral reserve funds
that undermine the response to climate change, including
prohibitions on the regulation by the Environmental
Protection Agency of greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. BENNET. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Motion to Instruct

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I send to the desk a motion to instruct
conferees. I am offering this motion on behalf of Senator Murray.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the
pending motion?
Without objection, the clerk will report the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], for Mrs.
Murray, moves that the managers on the part of the Senate
at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the House amendment to the resolution S. Con.
Res. 11 be instructed to insist that the final conference
report include the deficit-neutral reserve fund for
legislation to allow Americans to earn paid sick time in
the concurrent resolution as agreed to by the Senate.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this is a motion to instruct budget
conferees to keep in the bill the Senate-passed deficit-neutral reserve
fund for legislation to allow Americans to earn paid sick time. This
was an amendment which passed during a vote-arama of the Senate by a
vote of 61 to 39. So it passed with pretty strong bipartisan support,
and I would hope we could pass this language again.
The truth is, at a time when millions of Americans are working longer
hours for lower wages, when our middle class continues to decline, we
also have another serious problem in that only 53 percent of workers
report having paid sick leave. Well, you know, people get sick. That is
a fact of life, and it is unfortunate that only 53 percent of workers
report having paid sick leave. This means people are going to work when
they are not well. I don't know about you, but I am not enthused about
walking into a restaurant where someone who may have the flu or have
some other problem is serving food or preparing food. I don't think
that is terribly healthy for this country, not to mention that when
there are so many contagious illnesses out there, I don't know that we
want to have people who are ill and contagious going to work.
So this is a very simple motion and basically reiterates what we had
in the first discussion. Again, it won by 61 to 39.
All over this country, States and cities are in the process of
enacting paid sick leave legislation, and they are seeing economic
benefits from that. They have seen mothers more likely to return to
work and higher employment in the leisure, hospitality, education, and
health sectors.
So, again, this is the same language Senator Murray offered. I
strongly support this motion, and I hope my colleagues will vote for
it.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Motion to Instruct

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I send to the desk a motion to instruct
conferees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report the
motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], for Mrs.
Murray, moves that the managers on the part of the Senate
at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the House amendment to the resolution S. Con.
Res. 11 be instructed to insist that the final conference
report include a provision to build on the Bipartisan
Budget Act of 2013 and provide sequester relief in 2016
and 2017 by closing tax loopholes.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this motion is being offered on behalf of
Senator Murray, and it would instruct budget conferees to build on the
Bipartisan Budget Act and provide sequester relief in 2016 and 2017 by
closing tax loopholes.
As the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, I rise today to
offer a motion to instruct conferees, on behalf of Senator Murray, to
S. Con. Res. 11, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2016, to provide 2 years of sequester relief by closing tax
loopholes. This is a concept, an idea I very strongly support. Many
Members on both sides of the aisle are concerned that Congress will not
be able to pass and enact appropriations bills at the sequester levels.
The President's fiscal year 2016 budget provides sequester relief.
Moreover, the President has indicated he will veto legislation that
does not lift the sequester caps.
Discretionary spending has already been cut by $1.6 trillion, and
nondefense discretionary spending is currently on track to be the
lowest in 50 years. Nondefense discretionary spending is on track to be
the lowest in 50 years.
Instead of continuing to cut nondefense discretionary spending, we
need to increase funding for programs, such as education and
infrastructure, that reduce income inequality and that create the
millions of jobs we so desperately need. We can fund these investments
by looking at wasteful spending in the Tax Code that has allowed major
corporations to pay very little, if anything, in Federal income taxes.
Each and every year, we are losing well over $100 billion in revenue
because large, profitable corporations and some of the wealthiest
Americans in this country are stashing their profits in the Cayman
Islands, Bermuda, and other offshore tax havens.
Further, the GAO has reported that the effective tax rate of large,
profitable corporations is just 12.6 percent--much lower than the 35-
percent statutory rate because of these tax loopholes. That is much
lower than what millions of middle-class workers pay to the IRS because
of the loopholes written into the Tax Code by corporate lobbyists.
In 1952, 32 percent of all of the revenue generated in this country
came from large corporations. Today, that figure is down to just 11
percent. Right now, there are so many loopholes in our Tax Code that it
ends up that many large corporations making billions of dollars in
profit pay nothing--zero--in corporate taxes to the Federal Government.
As a few examples, General Electric made over $5.8 billion in profits
in the United States last year but paid just nine-tenths of 1 percent
of that amount in Federal income taxes. Time Warner made $4.3 billion
in profits and paid nothing in Federal income taxes; in fact, it got a
rebate of $26 million. Xerox made $628 million in profits in 2014 and
paid nothing in Federal income taxes; in fact, it received a tax rebate
of $16 million.
I strongly support this motion which has been introduced by Senator
Murray to provide sequester relief, particularly for nondefense
discretionary programs, and I would hope very much that this motion to
instruct will receive wide bipartisan support.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S2206]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Motion to Instruct

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
motion be set aside so that I may call up my motion, which is at the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Ms. Stabenow] moves that the
managers on the part of the Senate at the conference on
the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House
amendment to the resolution S. Con. Res. 11 be instructed
to insist that the final conference report not include the
Medicare cuts in the concurrent resolution as agreed to by
the Senate, which would substantially increase out-of-
pocket healthcare expenses for senior citizens, and not
include the Medicare cuts in the concurrent resolution as
agreed to by the House of Representatives, which would end
Medicare as it currently exists by turning it into a
voucher-based premium support system and eliminate the
guaranteed healthcare benefits earned by the people of the
United States.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, my motion would instruct conferees to
remove from the budget resolution any Medicare cuts that would increase
out-of-pocket costs for senior citizens, eliminate guaranteed benefits,
or make structural changes to Medicare by turning it into a voucher-
based premium support system.
It is incredibly important that something as important as health care
for senior citizens and those with disabilities be protected and
honored. People are paying into this system. They have paid into this
system their whole lives. They have the confidence of knowing that
health care is available to them, those now on Medicare, and we need to
make sure we are strengthening this health care system, not
fundamentally changing it from a guaranteed system to some kind of a
voucher system or making other kinds of changes that will cost people
more money.
When we began this process, my hope was that we could have a spending
plan that really would address the middle class and a budget resolution
that would make it very clear that this is about giving every American
a fair shot--a fair shot to stay in the middle class or to work hard
and get into the middle class--that this is really about strengthening
our country. We don't have an economy without a middle class. It is not
the other way around. We don't have an economy without a middle class.
That is the economic engine.
I was hoping for a budget that would reflect one of our core
beliefs--that if you work hard in America, you are going to have a fair
shot to be able to get ahead. But that is not what this budget is
about. Unfortunately, this budget does not do that. Instead,
Republicans have written a budget that continues to rig the system for
the wealthy and the well-connected rather than creating opportunity for
everybody to make it.
That is really the fundamental fight we have had through this whole
budget process. How do we grow the economy? Is it the top down? Do we
give to those one more time at the very top and hope that it trickles
down and that somehow people who are working hard every day will
actually feel it and have money in their pockets, or do we focus on the
middle? Do we focus on those working hard to get into the middle class
and create an opportunity to grow from the bottom up, which is the way
we know the economies grow?
So I am deeply concerned about the cuts to Medicare in this budget. I
am also deeply concerned about the other cuts to health care in this
budget. We all wish we could control whether we get sick or whether our
children get sick or whether moms and dads get sick, but the reality is
that health care is an issue for all of us. It is not a frill; it is a
necessity. Medicare has addressed that for seniors and people with
disabilities in a way that gives them peace of mind and confidence in a
quality medical system.
We just addressed through a bill last night the whole question of
making sure that doctors are paid and that they are available to people
who are on Medicare. We have another part of the health care system
called Medicaid, which is a lifeline to so many Americans who continue
to feel the effects of the great recession and are struggling for basic
health care needs. In fact, 80 percent of the Medicaid Program
spending--80 percent of the dollars--goes to seniors in nursing homes
and in some way impacts all of us--friends, neighbors, relatives.
So we are looking at a budget on the Medicaid front--when we combine
it all, eliminating the Medicaid expansion and having the other cuts in
the budget--of a $1.2 trillion cut in the Senate budget. The Senate
Republican budget cuts Medicaid health care--80 percent of which goes
to seniors in nursing homes--by $1.2 trillion. It is even worse in the
House. I worry when we are now looking at going to conference with the
House of Representatives, where their combined cut was $1.7 trillion to
Medicaid, of which most of the money goes to low-income seniors in
nursing homes. They would then also turn it into a block grant and cut
it on top of that, and we don't even know if it would get spent on
health care.

Unfortunately, this budget, while not really balancing, is attempting
to be balanced on the backs of the most vulnerable Americans in our
country, and our seniors are taking a huge hit in this budget. The
House cuts all together $316 billion and moves away from the guaranteed
benefit to something that has been called vouchers or premium support
or other structures that don't look like Medicare.
In the Senate, all together now, when you add it up and the effects
of what was done last night, we are looking at a cut of $566 billion.
My amendment would stop that $566 billion cut in Medicare or at least
it would instruct--I should clarify that. I wish it would just
automatically stop it, but it would instruct the final conference
committee to not move forward on that $566 billion in Medicare cuts. We
are talking about Americans who have worked hard all their lives, and
they have earned that health care benefit.
Let me also say that when we think about a budget that would reflect
opportunity for everyone to get ahead or one that keeps a system rigged
against the average American, we saw vote after vote where,
unfortunately, colleagues on the other side of the aisle let
opportunities slip away to provide real equal pay for women, equal pay
for equal work. Yesterday was the day in which women finally made as
much money in 2014 as a man made in 2014. It took the majority of women
in this country until yesterday to make the same amount of money. We
have an opportunity to fix that. The Republican colleagues said no. We
had an opportunity to invest in rebuilding America--roads, bridges,
water, sewer systems, crumbling infrastructure. Our distinguished
ranking member is a champion on the issue of infrastructure. We had an
opportunity to create millions of jobs and Republican colleagues said
no. We had an opportunity to invest in education but instead we saw--
and we see--a bill that takes away funding for Pell grants that doesn't
help millions of Americans who are struggling to pay back college
loans.
I just left a group of high school students from Brighton, MI, and
the question I received was, What are you doing about the cost of
college--and I am worried about the cost of college. I want to do the
right thing. I want to go to school. They want to do what we are all
asking them to do to get skills so they can compete in a global
economy, be responsible adults.
Too many will come out of that college experience with more than
enough debt to buy a big house, and then they will not be able to buy
the house as they dig themselves out of debt.
We all know that in this bill, the Republican budget, both in the
House and Senate, repeals the Affordable Care Act--between 16 million
American people, health care gone, on top of all of the cuts to
Medicare for senior citizens, senior citizens in nursing homes under
Medicaid.
When we had an opportunity to close tax loopholes, I offered again my
Bring Jobs Home Act to say a company

[[Page S2207]]

should not be able to move on paper out of this country and avoid
paying their fair share to contribute to the services of America. They
still breathe the air. They still drink the water. They still drive on
the roads. They still get the educated workforce. But they move on
paper, and now they are not a part of those contributing to America. I
don't think that is very patriotic, frankly. We had a chance to close
that and instead support the middle class, people working hard,
increase their earned-income tax credit, and Republican colleagues said
no.
So, unfortunately, we have in front of us a budget that says no to
opportunity to the majority of Americans and yes to continued policies
that, frankly, have not worked because they are focused on the
privileged few.
If I might take just 1 more minute, I want to put my hat on as
ranking member, former chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, and
say also that as a Member of the Budget Committee and the Agriculture
Committee, I strongly urge the leadership in the Senate not to accept
the reconciliation instruction related to agriculture and to,
therefore, open the farm bill, all of the phases of the farm bill that
we worked so hard to get passed in a bipartisan basis.
I commend the chairman for not including that reconciliation
instruction in the Senate. I very much appreciate that, but the House
does. We have Members on both sides of the aisle deeply concerned about
reopening what is economic certainty. We have a lot of places that
there is not certainty. But in rural America at least we have 5 years
of economic certainty through the farm bill, and we have nearly 400
agricultural organizations led by the American Farm Bureau, food
groups, conservation groups, nutrition groups that have asked us not to
open the farm bill again in this process. I am very hopeful the
Senate's position on that will be the position that is maintained.
I offer an amendment that we will be voting on Medicare. I think it
will be wonderful if we came together and said no to the cuts in
Medicare and that we would show that we understand what is at stake for
that program. Also, I hope we will very clearly indicate that we want
to stand with rural America and our farmers and make sure they do not
have to worry about opening the policies of the farm bill until the 5
years on the farm bill has been completed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. I yield such time as the Senator from Nebraska needs to
offer two motions. Those will be the last two offered, after which I
think both sides are prepared to yield back their time and begin voting
on the 13 different votes which we will be asking consent on when she
finishes her speech.
I yield time to the Senator from Nebraska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.

Motion to Instruct

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending motion and call up my motion, which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Which motion does the Senator wish to call up first?
Mrs. FISCHER. Equal pay.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nebraska [Mrs. Fischer] moves that the
managers on the part of the Senate at the conference on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House amendment to
the resolution S. Con. Res. 11 be instructed to insist that
the final conference report include a provision relating to
promoting equal pay, which may include preventing
discrimination on the basis of sex and preventing retaliation
against employees for seeking or discussing wage information,
as included in section 356 of S. Con. Res. 11, as agreed to
by the Senate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.

Motion to Instruct

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

The Senator from Nebraska [Mrs. Fischer] moves that the
managers on the part of the Senate at the conference on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House amendment to
the resolution S. Con. Res. 11 be instructed to insist that
the final conference report include a provision relating to a
deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to tax credits for
employers providing paid family and medical leave.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be
yielded back except for 5 minutes equally divided between the managers
and that the Senate vote on the pending motions to instruct in the
order listed, with 2 minutes equally divided in the usual form between
each vote, and that all votes after the first in the series be limited
to 10 minutes: No. 1 would be Brown on Wall Street banks; No. 2 would
be Sanders, postal plant closures; No. 3 would be Burr, student loans;
No. 4 would be Warren, student loans; No. 5 would be Sanders, Social
Security; No. 6 would be Schatz, same-sex marriage benefits; No. 7
would be Bennet, climate change; No. 8 would be Fischer, side-by-side
to Mikulski; No. 9, Mikulski, equal pay for equal work; No. 10,
Fischer, side-by-side to Murray; No. 11, Murray, paid sick leave; No.
12, Murray, eliminate sequestration; and No. 13, Stabenow, Medicare
cuts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as I have indicated on many occasions, I
think this Republican budget is, frankly, a disaster. It causes severe
harm for some of the most vulnerable people in this country. It throws
27 million people off of health insurance. It forces elderly people to
pay more for prescription drugs. It cuts $90 billion in mandatory Pell
grants at a time when young people are struggling to be able to afford
to go to college. Pell grants are one of the significant ways that they
are able to go to college; $90 billion is cut. It cuts Head Start
significantly, such that 110,000 fewer young children will be able to
enroll in Head Start. It cuts title I education program money directed
to schools with low-income kids, the schools who need help the most.
At a time when so many of our families are struggling to put food on
the table, this budget cuts nutrition programs, including the WIC
Program, by $10 billion. That is the nutrition program that goes to
pregnant women, mothers, and infants. It makes other massive cuts in
nutrition. It makes cuts in affordable housing. It makes cuts in job
training.

Now, in the midst of all of this, what it does also, unbelievably,
while wreaking havoc on the lives of millions of working families, it
decides that we can afford to give huge tax breaks to the very, very,
very wealthiest--the top two-tenths of 1 percent--by abolishing the
estate tax which would provide $263 billion in tax breaks for the
wealthiest two-tenths of 1 percent of the American people. But then,
after giving huge tax breaks to the very, very, very rich, what it does
is raise taxes for low-income and working-class families by increasing
taxes by $900 apiece for more than 13 million families by allowing the
expansion of the earned-income tax credit and the child tax credit to
expire.
So massive cuts in health care, education, and nutrition for working
families; huge tax breaks----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for one more
minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SANDERS. As I was saying, huge tax breaks for millionaires and
billionaires and then increased taxes for low-income and working
people. This is moving the country in exactly the wrong direction.
Today, our side of the aisle brought forth 10 separate motions to
instruct, which, if passed, would make this budget a much better
document, and I hope very much that both sides of the aisle will
support these motions.

[[Page S2208]]

With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member for his
cooperation to date and look forward to working with him on the
conference committee, along with the Members of the House, both the
Republicans and the Democrats. The purpose of that is to make this is a
better budget bill.
I will reiterate that I had about 4 weeks to put it together and 4
months to get it done. We have not done one in 8 years, so it was quite
a challenge. We are getting closer now, and today we will have an
opportunity to voice some concerns. I am glad we are at this point. I
look forward to working with the conferees.
I yield back any time.

Brown Motion to Instruct

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior
to a vote in relation to the motion offered by the Senator from Ohio
related to Wall Street banks.
Who yields time?
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this motion is being offered by Senator
Brown of Ohio. Our big banks are too big. The largest banks are now 38
percent larger than they were before the crisis. In terms of
outstanding loans, one out of seven Americans is being pursued by a
debt collector. U.S. banks are so big that the six largest financial
institutions in this country today have assets of roughly $9.8
trillion, which is equivalent to 60 percent of the Nation's GDP.
Being big and powerful is good for the banks and bad for this
country. For example, Bloomberg says the too-big-to-fail subsidy is
massive. By being big, they get huge subsidies. It amounts to $83
billion a year, and that is why I support this provision to stop too
big to fail.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, this bill is cosponsored by Senator Vitter
from our side. If a big bank fails under the Senator's reform, there is
nothing that protects the taxpayers from having to save the bank. In
other words, this approach does not do what many experts believe is
needed, which is to expand the bankruptcy laws to permit an orderly
disposition to failed banks without taxpayer bailouts.
I will note that the specific policies listed are all authorities
that exist today in various financial regulatory agencies, and I
believe all Senators support the goal of eliminating the risk of
taxpayer bailouts.
Having said that, I ask that all the Republicans support this motion
and offer to take it on a voice vote.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr.
Vitter).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 86, nays 11, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 146 Leg.]

YEAS--86

Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Daines
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Franken
Gardner
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden

NAYS--11

Alexander
Burr
Coats
Cotton
Crapo
Flake
Hatch
Risch
Sasse
Tillis
Toomey

NOT VOTING--3

Cruz
Reid
Vitter
The motion was agreed to.

Sanders Motion to Instruct

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate equally
divided prior to a vote in relation to the motion to instruct offered
by the Senator from Vermont relative to postal plant closures.
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, in the State of Vermont and I expect all
over this country, especially in rural areas, what we have seen is a
significant slowdown in mail delivery by the U.S. Postal Service. What
this provision is about is the establishment of a deficit-neutral
reserve fund which establishes a moratorium to prevent the shutting
down of up to 82 mail processing plants all across this country. It is
asking that we reinstate overnight delivery standards, undo what the
Postal Service has done, that we protect rural services, and that we
allow the Postal Service to innovate and adapt to compete in a digital
age.
The basic financial problems of the Postal Service are that they have
to pay $5.5 billion every year in retirement benefits. That program
already has $50 billion in its account. Do away with that, and the
Postal Service will make a modest profit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, there is a huge concern, particularly in
rural America, about the closing down of the processing centers in
States. Our State no longer has a processing center. It takes at least
an extra day to get the mail.
So I would urge my colleagues to accept this motion, and I would ask
if the sponsor would take it by voice vote.
Mr. SANDERS. I have to call for a rollcall vote on this one.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr.
Vitter).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer)
and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 85, nays 11, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 147 Leg.]

YEAS--85

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

NAYS--11

Cassidy
Coats
Corker
Flake
Kirk
Lee
Paul
Perdue
Rubio
Tillis
Toomey

NOT VOTING--4

Boxer
Cruz
Reid
Vitter
The motion was agreed to.

Burr Motion to Instruct

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate equally
divided prior to a vote in relation to the

[[Page S2209]]

motion to instruct by the Senator from North Carolina relative to
student loans.
The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise to offer a motion to instruct
conferees that would insist that the final conference report on the
budget include a provision to address student loans. This very simple
motion to instruct tracks the amendment introduced by me and Senators
King, Warner, and Alexander that was included in the budget resolution
by a voice vote.
The Senate has already demonstrated its support by unanimously
passing this under a voice vote.
I yield to my cosponsor, Senator King.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Mr. KING. Mr. President, I rise to support this amendment. This
simply simplifies the repayment options for students under the present
student loan program, which is, frankly, very confusing--up to nine
different programs with confusing names and confusing terms. This boils
it down to two simple ones: a fixed repayment schedule or a variable
schedule based upon income. I should mention that I see this as an
important stand-alone provision.
I am also going to support Senator Warren's amendment on refinancing
student loans.
I believe this is an important amendment. I urge my colleagues to
vote yes.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back all
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, all time is yielded back.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr.
Vitter).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 148 Leg.]

YEAS--97

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

NOT VOTING--3

Boxer
Cruz
Vitter
The motion was agreed to.

Warren Motion to Instruct

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior
to a vote in relation to the motion offered by the Senator from
Massachusetts relative to student loans.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I support simplifying student loans--the
motion that just passed 97 to 0--and I commend Senators King and Burr,
but it is not enough. We need to cut the interest rate on student
loans. The Federal Government should not be making a profit off the
backs of our kids who are trying to get an education.
This bill is paid for by asking millionaires and billionaires to pay
taxes at the same rate as middle-class families.
This is a bill which really puts it to the Senate. Are we here to
work just for the millionaires and billionaires or are we here to work
for young people who are trying to get an education? This Senate works
all the time for billionaires. Today, I hope we can make it work for
our students.
I urge adoption of this motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against the
Warren motion. What the Senator wants to do is to create yet another
repayment program, which ultimately ends up costing students more than
the income-based repayment. She puts hundreds of billions of private
debt on the Federal books and pretends the cost is free. Rather than
fixing the maze of repayment programs, she adds to it with a new
program that is ultimately less generous than the existing program.
Whereas the Federal Government income-based repayment program and other
related loan repayment programs will cap payments as a percentage of an
individual's income, Senator Warren's legislation would only lower the
interest rate on those payments, potentially steering students into
higher monthly payments than they face in those other programs. So I
urge my colleagues to oppose the Warren motion.
I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
Ms. WARREN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr.
Vitter).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 52, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 149 Leg.]

YEAS--45

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

NAYS--52

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

NOT VOTING--3

Boxer
Cruz
Vitter
The motion was rejected.

Sanders Motion to Instruct

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate equally
divided prior to a vote in relation to the motion offered by the
Senator from Vermont relative to Social Security.
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, Social Security is arguably the most
important Federal program we have. It is life and death to millions of
senior citizens, people who have to figure out how they pay for food,
how they heat their homes, how they pay for their medicine. Social
Security is not going broke. It could pay out all benefits for the next
18 years.
What this provision does is make it clear that we go on record to not
cut Social Security benefits, not raise the

[[Page S2210]]

retirement age, not privatize Social Security. Let's stand with the
seniors of this country. Let us protect Social Security, not cut it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, under the budget rules we can't do anything
to Social Security. So this doesn't provide permission or denial of
anything that we can do at the present time. We cannot touch Social
Security under the budget.
So I ask for the Senator to take a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr.
Vitter).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 84, nays 13, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 150 Leg.]

YEAS--84

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

NAYS--13

Coats
Cochran
Flake
Hatch
Inhofe
Johnson
Lankford
Lee
McConnell
Perdue
Sasse
Scott
Sessions

NOT VOTING--3

Boxer
Cruz
Vitter
The motion was agreed to.

Schatz Motion to Instruct

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior
to a vote in relation to the motion offered by the Senator from Hawaii
relative to same-sex marriage benefits.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, on this motion, I think we are willing to
yield back all time and accept it on a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, all time is yielded back.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.

Vote Explanation

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I would like the Record to reflect that
had the vote on the Schatz motion to instruct conferees been conducted
by a rollcall vote, I would have voted nay.

Bennet Motion to Instruct

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate equally
divided prior to a vote in relation to the motion offered by the
Senator from Colorado relative to climate change.
The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I rise to offer a very simple motion to
instruct the budget conferees. It encourages the conferees to address
the economic and national security threats posed by climate change.
During our consideration of the budget, I offered an amendment that
outlined these threats and highlighted the need to act. That amendment
passed the Senate by a 53-to-47 vote. It was supported by both
Republicans and Democrats. The same language should be included in the
final budget conference.
During the markup, the Budget Committee adopted a complementary
amendment which discussed the importance of climate change initiatives
in the Department of Defense. The language should be included in the
final budget resolution.
Let's make it clear that the Congress plans to respond to the serious
economic and national security threats posed by climate change.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this motion to instruct.
I yield the floor, and I ask for a voice vote.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, we are willing to accept it on a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the motion?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.

Fischer Motion to Instruct

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior
to a vote in relation to the motion offered by the Senator from
Nebraska relative to equal pay.
The Senator from Nebraska.
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, this motion takes an important step
forward by providing necessary updates to current law regarding
nonretaliation. The change was supported on a bipartisan during our
recent budget debate.
This motion reinforces current law by banning gender discrimination
under both the Equal Pay Act and title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights
Act. Contrary to the claims of some, both of these laws enable women to
sue for discrimination.
Furthermore, my motion contains language similar to President Obama's
April 2014 Executive order stating that employees cannot be punished
for exercising their First Amendment rights by speaking with employers
or coworkers about their wages.
I cannot support the motion of the Senator from Maryland. It removes
merit pay, which I believe provides women with opportunities to advance
in their careers, and merit pay recognizes a woman's hard work and her
contributions. It also eliminates any liability cap under the motion of
the Senator from Maryland, which I believe benefits only attorneys and
not families. For the first time we are able to do this.
I thank the Presiding Officer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
All time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr.
Vitter).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 40, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 151 Leg.]

YEAS--57

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

NAYS--40

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

NOT VOTING--3

Boxer
Cruz
Vitter
The motion was agreed to.

[[Page S2211]]

Mikulski Motion to Instruct

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate equally
divided prior to a vote in relation to the motion offered by the
Senator from Maryland related to equal pay.
The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I have an alternative and far more
comprehensive approach than the Senator from Nebraska just offered.
Although I respect her and her advocacy for women, the Mikulski
amendment in the well would really finish the job we started with Lilly
Ledbetter. Yes, it would deal with the issue of harassment on the job
if one asks for information, which the Fischer amendment only dealt
with. My amendment would go several steps further. No. 2, it would
provide punitive damages for women who have been wrongly denied equal
pay for several years. No. 3, it also eliminates the false reasons
people give for not paying equal pay for equal work.
The Mikulski amendment is more comprehensive, more robust, and will
really finish the job and close the loopholes big corporations have had
for years. So if my colleagues like the Fischer amendment, they will be
crazy about the Mikulski amendment. Go all the way, not just part of
the way.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does anyone wish to speak in opposition?
Mr. ENZI. We yield back our time, and we will take a voice vote.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr.
Vitter).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 53, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 152 Leg.]

YEAS--44

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

NAYS--53

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

NOT VOTING--3

Boxer
Cruz
Vitter
The motion was rejected.

Fischer Motion to Instruct

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate equally
divided prior to a vote in relation to the motion offered by the
Senator from Nebraska relative to paid sick leave.
The Senator from Nebraska.
Mrs. FISCHER. Thank you, Mr. President.
Workplace flexibility is a necessity for our 21st-century families,
and Senator King and I have come up with a proposal that I think really
addresses this in a way that is voluntary and incentivizes businesses
to truly help families, help those hourly workers meet the needs they
are facing in this workplace environment and in their family
environments.
I yield the rest of my time to Senator King.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Mr. KING. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment and in
support of the United States finally joining the civilized nations of
the world in providing for family leave for our citizens. I know this
amendment doesn't go as far as some would like, but I believe it is
very credible, enforceable legislation that can move forward and really
change the lives of thousands and millions of people across this
country.
I commend the Senator from Nebraska for bringing this amendment
forward, and I intend to support it and urge my colleagues to do
likewise.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, if all time is yielded back, we would be
willing to take a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, all time is yielded
back.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.

Murray Motion to Instruct

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the
motion offered by the Senator from Washington relative to paid sick
leave.
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.
Congress, we have to vote on an economy that works for all of our
families, not just the wealthiest few. Today, 43 million Americans do
not have access to paid sick days, and when they are sick, they have to
choose between losing money out of their paycheck or toughing it out
and showing up to work.
I was delighted that during our budget debate, a bipartisan
majority--61 Senators strong--agreed that Congress should allow workers
to earn paid sick days. The amendment that just passed is voluntary. It
would only benefit a select number of people who work for employers who
already do the right thing.
This amendment will make sure that we boost worker productivity and
reduce turnover, which are benefits to both employers and employees. I
urge my colleagues to vote for this in a strong vote.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield back our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, we would be willing to accept this on a
voice vote, and we yield back all time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having been yielded back, the
question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.

Murray Motion to Instruct

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the
motion offered by the Senator from Washington relating to sequestration
elimination.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, Democrats and Republicans agree that the
automatic spending cuts across defense and nondefense investments are
terrible policy and need to be fixed. The bipartisan Budget Act we
passed last Congress did exactly that for the past 2 years and offered
us a template for how we can tackle this challenge in a bipartisan way,
once again.
We do not need to rely on gimmicks in this budget or the hopes that
we will somehow solve this later. We can fix this now in this
conference. I urge my colleagues to support this vote instructing the
conferees to roll back sequestration, allow the Appropriations
Committee to do their work and not kick this can down the road for all
of us to address later.
I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, there is a difference between how it got
voted through last year, which was actually an appropriation rather
than a budget. This does raise taxes in order to overcome the
sequestration. So I am urging a ``no'' vote. We have agreed to have a
voice vote on this one.
We yield back all time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having been yielded back, the
question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was rejected.

Stabenow Motion to Instruct

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2

[[Page S2212]]

minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the
motion offered by the Senator from Michigan relating to Medicare cuts.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, my motion would instruct conferees to
remove from the final budget resolution any Medicare cuts that would
increase out-of-pocket costs for senior citizens, eliminating
guaranteed benefits or making structural changes to Medicare by turning
it into a voucher-based system or premium support system.
I think one of our greatest concerns in this budget, among many, is
the fact that when you add it all up, there are $566 billion in
Medicare cuts in this Senate resolution. Shockingly, it is more than
even the House cuts. I would urge that we stand with people who pay
into a health care system that works. They have earned those benefits.
They are counting on those benefits.
Seniors and people with disabilities across the country need to know
Medicare is an intact, guaranteed health care system for them.
I urge support for my motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am going to urge my colleagues to reject
this motion to instruct. I credit Senator Stabenow's instincts to
approach the question of Medicare seriously. I am sure she knows we all
take Medicare's future seriously. There are some problems with Medicare
that need to be solved.
The budget shows Medicare's rate of growth for an average annual rate
of 6.4 to 5.5 percent over the next 10 years. Why does the budget
resolution adopt these numbers? Because Republicans and the President
agree we must act on policies which extend the life of the Medicare
trust fund.
The budget does this by adopting the President's goal of extending
the life of Medicare's hospital insurance trust fund by at least 5
years. According to the Medicare trustees themselves, the hospital
insurance fund could be insolvent as early as 2021, just 6 years from
now.
Independent actuaries at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid report
that over the next 75 years, the Federal Government has promised more
than $35 trillion in Medicare benefits. So Republicans joined with the
President in looking to extend the life of the hospital insurance trust
fund and make the Medicare program sustainable.
So I ask that you reject this motion to instruct.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, if I might take just 1 more moment, I do
not think I used all my time.
I just want to say for the record, the President of the United States
is not supporting $566 billion in cuts to Medicare.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
Ms. STABENOW. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr.
Vitter).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 52, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 153 Leg.]

YEAS--45

NAYS--52

NOT VOTING--3

Boxer
Cruz
Vitter
The motion was rejected.
The Presiding Officer appointed Mr. Enzi, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Sessions,
Mr. Crapo, Mr. Graham, Mr. Portman, Mr. Toomey, Mr. Johnson, Ms.
Ayotte, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Corker, Mr. Perdue, Mr. Sanders, Mrs. Murray,
Mr. Wyden, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Warner, Mr. Merkley, Ms.
Baldwin, Mr. Kaine, and Mr. King conferees on the part of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.

____________________