republican senators across the aisle to join the democrats to support the measure. you may also see work on the defense programs bill and executive nominations remain. now live to the senate floor here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, retired admiral dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. god of peace, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, thank you for coming to our world with

the gift of salvation. we praise you for forgiving our sins and canceling the penalty which stood against us. help our senators to be peacemakers as they move toward the finish line of another year. lord, may they be filled with a knowledge of your will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, leading lives worthy of you as they strive to please you. lord, infuse them with the spirit of your peace and grace so that there will be peace on earth and goodwill to humankind.

we pray in your majestic name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. reid: mr. president? the president pro tempore: the majority leader. mr. reid: i move to proceed to calendar number 243. the president pro tempore: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 1356 a bill to amend the work force investment act of 1998 and so forth and for other purposes. mr. reid: at 10:00 a.m. there will be a roll call vote on the motion to invoke cloture to concur in the mouse message on h.j. res. 59, the budget resolution.

i would note the absence of a quorum. the president pro tempore: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. mr. wicker: thank you, mr. president. it is my understanding that at 10:00 a.m. the senate will proceed to a cloture vote on the proposed budget. it's already been passed by the house of representatives. the cloture vote will take 60 senators. if those 60 vote in favor we would then move to a period of debate, pro forma debate, actually, because the question would already have been decided. if members do not favor this budget, the time to register that opposition is this

morning, and at 10:00 a.m. is the last chance to say no to this proposal and simply to send it back to the negotiators and ask them to do a better job. i rise this morning to reiterate my strong opposition to the thousands-passed budget, to the murray-ryan budget, and i do so for one specific reason. i would first interject there are many aspects of the budget that members do not like, that we're not overly delighted with. we realized from the outset that there would be compromises and unpleasant decisions that have to be made because when you find additional revenues, when you cut programs that are popular,

it hurts and it is uncomfortable. and so i appreciate the fact that senator murray and representative ryan have made tough decisions and apparently the house of representatives on a bipartisan basis has agreed to go along. but my objection that moves me from undecided to a no is what this budget does to current and military retirees and the fact that it breaks a promise that has been made to military retirees for years and years. it does so retro actively, unlike it does to federal employees in the budget. and unlike this congress directed on an earlier occasion, when establishing a commission to look into

retirement. what it does is for military retirees under the age of 62, instead of receiving the same cost of living adjustment that everyone else would be receiving, it cuts their cola back to cola less 1%. now, why do we have a cost of living adjustment in the first place? the cost of living adjustment is designed to protect the purchasing power of a pension, and so when a young man or a young woman joins the military, say 20 years ago at age 22, for example, they served for 20 years at least and they're entitled to a pension under the law. that was the deal. and we agreed that also once that pension was received and

was in place, we would protect that pension against inflation each year by a cost of living adjustment. it's simply fair. it protects the purchasing power and the real ability of that pension to -- to protect and support the retired military person and that person's family. what this budget does is go back on that promise, and it says to people who have completed their service, who have completed the full 20 years of their bargain, you may have done what we asked you to do, but now the government is not going to do what we told you we would do. we're not going to protect the purchasing power of your pension, and the first year we're going to cut that cost of living back 1%. and the next year whatever cost

of living there is out there, you get that less 1%. and it adds up over time, and i think members have been astonished to learn that an e-7 retiring at age 40 today -- that's an enlisted person, enlisted grade 7, retiring at age 40 today, would experience a loss of $83,000 in purchasing power over the course of the 22 years that pensioner would experience between age 40 and age 62. $83,000 in broken promises to our military retiree. an o-5, an officer at grade five, would lose some $124,000

lifetime with this budget agreement. it is on the verge of being adopted. the only thing that stands in the way between our military retirees and this broken promise amounting to 8 thousand dollars for the typical enlisted person, $124,000 for the typical retired officer, the only thing standing in the way is this vote at 10:00 a.m. on cloture. 41 of us could say to the senate hold on a minute, we know we have a problem here, and we know we have an $80 billion package, but there's $6 billion of it here that's unfair to military retirees. we can do better than that. there are amendments that we would like to offer.

there are amendments senator graham would like to offer, there's an amendment by senator ayotte, the distinguished senator from new hampshire, that would eliminate this broken promise to our military retirees and pay for it with other savings elsewhere. savings that have already been endorsed as good government and simply a matter of tightening up the enforcement of laws that are already there. we can find, my colleagues, we can find $6 billion elsewhere without breaking a promise to people who during a time of the global war on terror have stood forward, donned the uniform of the united states of america and volunteered time and time again to re-up, to go overseas, place themselves in harm's way,

and embark on a career in the united states military. we can pass a budget that accomplishes the goals of murray-ryan without breaking this promise, and i so hope we will. but this is the time. 47 minutes from now is the opportunity we will have. after that, it's a simple majority, the deal will be done. the news accounts say that the debate is over. that the votes are already in. i would hope that somewhere, someone within the sound of my voice is realizing that this is just another example of the government breaking its word and when we do this, when we tell falsehoods and change our minds and change our positions to the american people over and over and over again, what does that

do to the confidence that the american people should have in this government, the confidence of their elected officials to do what we promised to do and to fulfill our side of an agreement? i implore my colleagues, mr. president, even at this late hour to take a pause, ask -- perhaps ask the committee, the conference committee which i was a member of and which was not consulted in the end, to take another look at this, find the $6 billion in savings elsewhere and fulfill our promise to the american people. one other point before i yield back, mr. president. i just want to point out to you you, a commission was established last year by congress entitled the military compensation retirement modernization commission.

established last year. the purpose of this commission was to provide us with a comprehensive list of ways to make meaningful reforms to military pay and benefits. membd remember that we specifically told this commission it could recommend any option as long as it grandfathered in those who currently serve and those who are currently retired. that was the sense of the senate. that was the sense of the congress last year. and i think this is one reason why military retirees are so surprised by this reversal, so surprised that we would be on the brink of changing the rules in the middle of the game because we specifically said only last year that we would not do such a thing.

i hope we'll honor that promise, and there's yet time for the senate to do so. i urge a "no" vote, strongly urge a "no" vote for this reason on the cloture vote which will begin shortly. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, we went to conference on a budget resolution -- mrs. murray: mr. president, before the senator speaks,ist last ten minutes -- i have the last ten minutes of before the vote. i ask the senator have two minutes and i be recognized.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: so we went to conference, and the budget conference didn't meet. we didn't produce a budget conference. the conferees did not vote. our leaders prepared legislation that's now before us. it has a number of problems, in my opinion. it's not the right way to have conducted this process, but the question is should we advance with this legislation or does it need to be improved? i believe it can be improved. i believe it should be improved. and i believe legislation of this size and scope that actually amends the budget control act of the united states that successfully contains the growth in spending for a couple of years ought not to be lightly amended. so what i'd likely change, i would suggest the right vote today would be against cloture and to say to the leadership and senator reid that we want to have amendments on this

legislation. we're about to have a significant reduction in the retirement benefits of military -- disabled military personnel, people who served 20 years in the united states military. their pay is going to be cut as much as $70,000 for a staff sergeant over their lifetime. and we need to think about that. we also -- this legislation, amazingly and disappointingly, has altered the ability of this senate to block increases in spending. we have a budget point of order today that allows an objection to be raised to add, to make, to require 60 votes in order to spend more than we agreed to spend. this legislation amazingly takes that away. perhaps the house didn't understand the significance of it. but it's very significant.

we've used it three separate times to block tax-and-spend legislation within the last year or so successfully and help us stay with the commitment we made to the american people to keep spending at a direct level. so, colleagues, there are a lot of problems with this bill, but the only way to fix it will be to say to senator reid and to the leadership here in the senate, the democratic leadership, let's slow down, let's give us a chance to have amendments and let's fix some of the problems. and there's plenty of time to fix those problems, send the bill back to the house and be able to pass it before the deadline of january 15. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, for the past few years here in congress we have lurched from within budget crisis to another, from one fiscal cliff to the

next. when one clockdown clock stopped it wasn't long before the next got started, the constant crisis cost us billions of dollars in lost growth and jobs. and the continued across-the-board cuts from sequestration were hurting our families and our communities and cutting off critical investments in economic growth and national security programs. mr. president, after the completely unnecessary government shutdown and debt limit crisis just two months ago, the american people were more disgusted than ever at the gridlock and the dysfunction. they were sick of partisanship, sick of showboating and saber rattling. they were tired of turning on their televisions at night and seeing elected officials saying it is my way or the highway. and they had no more patience for politicians holding the economy and the federal government hostage to extract

concessions or score political points. so when the government was finally reopened and the debt limit crisis averted, people across the country were hoping that democrats and republicans could finally get in a room, make some compromises and take a step away from the constant crisis. that is why i was so glad that part of that crisis-ending deal was creating the budget conference that many of us here on both sides of the aisle had been trying to start since the senate and house passed our budgets seven months earlier. mr. president, the budget conference began at a time when distress between democrats and republicans could not have been higher. we had just two months to get a deal to avoid lurching towards another crisis. and most people assumed there was no way the divide could be bridged. but chairman ryan and i got

together, and we started talking, and we decided that instead of trying to solve everything at once, the most important thing we could do for the families we represented was to end the uncertainty and start rebilling some trust. -- rebuilding some trust. we weren't going to spend the next eight weeks sniping at each other from our partisan corners. we were not going to use what was said in the room to launch political attacks on the other. and we weren't going to try to tackle the larger challenges we both know are critical but weren't going to be solved right now. so we focused on what was attainable. we worked together to find common ground and we looked for ways that we could compromise and take some steps towards the other. we both thought that the least we should be able to do was to find a way to replace some of the across-the-board cuts from sequestration and agree on a spending level for the short term so we could avoid another crisis.

now, i know some of our colleagues want to keep the sequester caps, but democrats and many republicans believe it makes sense to replace these meat-ax cuts with smarter and more balanced savings. mr. president, we spent seven weeks working on this. i worked very closely with the house budget committee ranking member chris van hollen as well as my colleagues here in the senate on and off the budget committee, and i'm very proud that last week chairman ryan and i reached an agreement on the bipartisan budget act of 2013. this bill passed the house of representatives on thursday on a vote of 332-94, with overwhelming support from democrats and republicans. and i come to the floor today to urge my colleagues to support this bill here in the senate and send it to the president so it can be signed into law.

mr. president, the bipartisan budget act puts job and economic growth first by rolling back sequestration's harmful cuts to education, medical research, infrastructure investments, defense jobs for the next two years. if we didn't get a deal, we would have faced another continuing resolution that would have locked in the automatic cuts, or worse, a potential government shutdown in just a few short weeks. over the past year i've heard from so many people across my home state of washington who have told me sequestration has hurt their families, businesses, and communities. from the parents of children whose head start programs were shut down or its senators wondering if meals on wheels would continue, the scientists and doctors whose investments in cutting edge research and medical cures were cut off or threatened, the construction workers who lost their jobs when projects were put on hold, small

business owners whose revenues were declining due to the cuts and the uncertainty and so many more. for them, the cuts from sequestration were senseless. they were real. they were hurting. and they were only going to get worse. so i'm very proud that our bill replaces almost two-thirds of this year's sequester cuts to domestic discretionary investments. this won't solve every problem sequestration has caused, but it is a step in the right direction and a dramatic improvement over the status quo. over the past year i've talked to workers at joint base lewis-mcchord and fair child air force base and elsewhere who have been very much impacted by the sequestration and very worried about how another round of cuts would affect their jobs and families. i've heard from military leaders who told me sequestration would impact our national security if it continued. and from companies that do business with the defense

department that the uncertainty and the cuts were hurting their ability to hire workers and invest in future growth. so i am very glad that this bill would prevent the upcoming round of defense sequestration and provide some certainty for the pentagon for the upcoming years. secretary of defense hagel and chairman of the joint chief of staffs demsey have both expressed support for this bill, as have a number of colleagues here in congress who spent the last few years highlighting the impact of continued sequestration on national security and defense workers. mr. president, the increased investments we get from rolling back sequestration over the next two years are fully replaced with a smarter, balanced mix of new revenue and more responsible spending cuts. experts and economists have said the responsible thing to do is increase investments now while our economic recovery remains fragile and workers are still

fighting to get back on the job while tackling our deficit and debt over the long run. this bill moves us in the direction of exactly that. we have cut our deficit in half over the past few years, and this bill adds to the $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction done since 2011 with an additional $23 billion in savings over the next ten years. this bill isn't exactly what i would have written on my own, i'm pretty sure it's not what chairman ryan would have written on his own. i ask unanimous consent for an additional three minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? hearing none. mrs. murray: mr. president, this bill is a compromise and that means neither side got everything they wanted and both of us had to give a bit. i was very disappointed we weren't able to close a single wasteful tax loophole that benefits the wealthiest americans or biggest corporations. i'd hoped we could extend critical support for workers fighting to get back on the job and i was very disappointed

republicans refused to allow that to be part of this deal. i certainly would have liked to replace more of sequestration. i know it was difficult for many republicans to accept any increases in the b.c.a. caps at all, and i know many republicans had hoped this would be an opportunity to make the kind of medicare and social security benefit cuts they have advocated for in the past but i fought hard to keep them out. mr. president, this deal is a compromise. it doesn't tackle every one of the challenges we face as a nation but that was never our goal. this bipartisan bill takes the first steps towards rebuilding our broken budget process and hopefully towards rebuilding our broken congress. we have spent far too long here scrambling to fix artificial crises instead of working together to solve the big problems we all know we need to address. we have budget deficits that have improved but not have

disappeared and we have deficits in education and innovation and infrastructure that continue to widen. there is much more we need to do to create jobs and boost our economy, and replace the remaining years of sequestration and tackle our long-term fiscal challenges fairly and responsibly. so, mr. president, i'm hopeful that this deal can be just the first of many bipartisan deals that can rebuild some of the trust, brings democrats and republicans together. i urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan budget act of 2013 and, mr. president, i want to thank chairman ryan for his work with me over the last several months. i want to thank a number of members who have worked closely with us including ranking member van hollen and every member of the budget committee here in the senate who worked hard to pass a budget, start a conference and

get a bipartisan deal. when we come back next year, i'm ready to go to work with chairman ryan or anyone else from either side of this aisle who wants to build on this bipartisan foundation to continue addressing our nation's challenges fairly and responsibly. it isn't going to be easy, but the american people are expecting nothing less. thank you, mr. president, and i ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum required under rule 22 be waived with respect to the cloture motion relative to h.j. res. 59. the presiding officer: is there objection? hearing none. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to concur in the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.j. res. 59, the bipartisan budget act signed by 18 senators.

the presiding officer: by unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to concur in the house amendment to the senate amendment to house resolution 59 making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2014 shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 67 and the nays are 33. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. the chair lays before the senate

a message from the house which the clerk will report. the clerk: house message to accompany h.j. res. 59. the presiding officer: cloture having been invoked on the motion to concur on the house amendment to the senate amendment the motion to concur falls as it is inconsistent with cloture. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: mr. president, am i correct we're in postcloture now? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. cardin: mr. president, i wanted to take this time to talk about the budget agreement that was negotiated by senator murray and congressman ryan, the work that they did.

i first want to relate to my colleagues conversations i had with numerous marylanders over this past weekend, people i didn't know who came up to me and said how pleased they were that congress was on the verge of getting something done, something that would make a difference in our budget for the next two years, that democrats and republicans actually were able to reach a compromise and that we were actually able to get our business done in some regular order. they remember hopeful that it would not only make a difference in the budget of our nation this year and next, but it was a sign that democrats and republicans were prepared to work together to do the people's business. that this was truly bipartisan. it was a real compromise, something that we haven't seen enough of in this congress. the american people understand that the congress is controlled,

the house by republicans and the senate by democrats. they understand that. what they don't understand is how we have not been able to get together and compromise our differences in order to move forward on the important issues of our time. they were very encouraged by this action. so, mr. president, i intend to support the final vote on the budget agreement, and i hope my colleagues will support this agreement. it provides the framework for appropriation bills for the next two years without sequestration. that's regular order, the appropriation committees can now meet and decide the policy of our country where we believe prierts should be on -- priorities should be on federal resources. it allows us to operate hopefully without a continuing resolution. a number of continuing resolutions that we have passed

indicate a failure because when we pass a continuing resolution, we don't adopt the priorities for the current time. instead, we just freeze in prior years' priorities. we now have the opportunity to enact priorities that are important today, recognizing that some of the past spending is not necessary and there's other areas that we need now to adopt. considering the changes in our own community and considering the international changes. it allowses us to operate without the fear of a government shutdown. before i said a fear of a government shutdown, because we thought that we wouldn't see a government shutdown but as we know in october we saw a government shutdown and we saw people that were hurt, we saw our economy that was hurt as a result of that shutdown. now, this budget agreement gives us the opportunity to use regular order so that we can pass appropriation bills or an

omnibus bill that sets current priorities that allows us to do that without the fear of closing government, which is inefficient, costly, and harms our economy and people. and the framework that was adopted in this budget agreement allows us to protect our nation's seniors, be disabled -- disabled children and the disadvantaged. the resources can be made available to deal with our most vulnerable to allow us to move forward as a nation. and it shows that we can work together. so, mr. president, i strongly support this budget agreement, but i do so -- i want to express my disappointments and i'm sure every member of the senate will have disappointments, but i am concerned about what is included in this budget agreement and what's not included and i want to spend a few minutes talking about it. i am disappointed that this is a two-year agreement, that it doesn't completely remove

sequestration. i think all of us would acknowledge that sequestration is something we don't want to see in effect because what it is mindless across-the-board cuts. it doesn't set priorities. we're responsible to set priorities. if you ran into a rob prob with your home budget and your family, you lost some income, you wouldn't cut every expenditure identity identical. would you make decisions, make sure your family had a roof over them, had food on the table, maybe postpone a weekend trip. you don't treat every expenditure the same. sequestration treats every expenditure the same. the good news in this budget agreement, the good news, we don't worry about that for the next two years. the bad news, it returns after two years. and i know that senator murray has worked very hard to get rid of sequestration, i know she'll continue to work on that as chairman of the budget

committee. i applaud her for being able to reach agreement with the republicans particularly in the house but i hope we could get rid of sequestration once and for all and, unfortunately, this budget agreement does not do it, only two years. i would have liked to see a long-term budget agreement. and on that i would like to see us enact a long-term budget agreement. we talk frequently about the fact that one of the most damaging parts to our inaction is uncertainty. when you -- when businesses have to make decisions and individuals have to make decisions, the uncertainty of our federal budget causes them harm, extra costs, anxiety. we need a long-term budget agreement, the so-called grand bargain. yes, we will get an agreement for these two years but it doesn't take us beyond that. and we all understand we need a responsible budget, one that deals with the investments that

are important for job growth but also reduces the budget deficit. and i know that chairman murray has mentioned this frequently but let me repeat this. during the past two years we have reduced the deficit by $2.8 trillion. we've done a good job in reining in the federal deficit. that's over the period of fy 2014 to 2023 and before sequestration. when you go back to simpson-bowles and the amount of deficit reduction we were trying to get perks we're about three-fourths of the way there in reducing the deficit. yes, we've got to do more, we've got to continue to reduce the deficit but let us acknowledge that we've done a pretty good job in reining in the federal deficit and i applaud the chair of the budget committee for her leadership in that regard. we also must allow for critical investment for job growth.

we're in a global economy today. we got to invest in modernization. we need new investments in energy in this country, we need transportation investments, not just roads and bridges but the transit system. we need to invest in education. education is the great equalizer in america. we're in a global competition. we know that we are behind in the stem fields, the science, technology, engineering and math. we passed legislation to try to catch up. we got to fund those initiatives the federal government has to be an active partner in education. i could mention manying agencies but i always like to mention the national institutes of health which happens to be headquartered in my state of maryland. it is very important to new jersey, the presiding officer's state, and very important to every part of our country. why? because they do the basic research which is the building block for the type of technology

growth which is critically important in america. we got the best trained people here in america, we need to invest in the basic research so we can continue to lead the world. yes, the budget for n.i.h. has not been as strong as it needs to be. we got to invest more money in that. the one reason, many recent reasons we need a long-term budget agreement, we need predictability so we don't govern from one manufactured crisis to another manufactured crisis but also need it so we can invest in the critical investments for job growth in america. and that's another reason why i hope that we are able to build on this two-year agreement for a longer term budget agreement. we also need to protect the safety nets as we do that. we need a balance here and those are the most vulnerable need to make sure that their government is on their side, to help them whether they're our seniors, whether they're people with disabilities, whether it's young people who need an opportunity to be able to take

advantage of the opportunities in america. and we need to enhance our protection of our environment for future generations that make sense for our environment and also for our economy. so a balanced agreement for long-term budget which is not in this agreement would give us that predictability, would give us that ability to move forward. and to do that, we need to deal with mandatory spending, this budget agreement deals with discretionary spending, it doesn't deal with mandatory spending. mr. president, we've taken steps to move in this direction. the passage of the affordable care act puts in place a manner in which we can deal with health care costs by reducing the growth rate of health care expenditures by dealing with the readmissions to hospitals, by managing complicated illnesses, duplicate tests, getting people

out of the emergency room into our clinics and into preventive care, having seniors take advantage of preventive health care because they don't have to pay a co-payment they couldn't afford. these are ways that we improve what we call the delivery system of health care in america where you bring down the cost of health care. that's the best way to bring down the mandatory spending accounts of medicare and medicaid, reduce health care costs. we need to do more of that. we need to get down the cost of our mandatory spending in this country, and we could have done more in this budget agreement did not deal with that. and then there's the issue of revenue. i'm going to talk about revenue because i was proud to be part of the congress that balanced the federal budget when bill clinton was president of the united states. and you know what we did back then? we brought in more revenue and we reduced spending and we balanced the budget and what happened? our economy took off.

we were not only growing jobs, we were growing good-paying jobs and the standard of living for all americans went up. we got to get back to that. we are spending too much today and we don't have enough revenue and yes, this agreement takes care of reducing some -- some spending but not all, and does very -- virtually nothing about revenues. and we got to get back to that. and we can bring in the revenue necessary to balance the federal budget by reforming our tax code. there's been some great work done, senate finance committee, i'm privileged to serve on, democrats and republicans taking a look at our code to see ways that we can make it more -- more sense out of our tax code. we can do things about it. and let me just remind my colleagues that we spend more money in the tax code than we do through all the appropriation bills. we spend more in our tax code. over a trillion dollars a year

is spent in our tax code. these are tax breaks that go to some but not all taxpayers. so there's no need to raise rates. all we need to do is close loopholes and be more critical of how we spend our money in the tax code, as we do on the appropriations side. every dollar we spend on the appropriations side scrutinized all the time. we need to do the same thing on the tax side and quite franc senator baucus and senator hatch have worked out a way members of the finance committee can take a look at some of those and i think we can reach agreements on areas in the tax code that are not high priorities that can reduce the revenue hemorrhaging in that we have. put another way that if we eliminate all the tax breaks in the tax code our rates could be one half of what they are today. one half of what we are today. so we not only can bring in the revenue necessary to balance our federal budget and allow the type of investments that are

important for job growth we can treal, actually, reduce the rates for a large number of americans. unfortunately, that's not in this budget agreement and to me that's a disappointment that we're not dealing with the balance that's necessary for a long-term budget agreement. and then, mr. president, there's one other area i want to talk about and it's not going to be a surprise to my colleagues, a couple of areas i want to talk about, that's the federal work force. this agreement provides for a 1.3% increase in retirement contributions for new hires under federal service. that's on top of an increase that was just done two years ago on the extension, a year ago on the extension of the payroll where we increased the contribution force new hires. we also in this budget agreement have a reduction in the cola increases for military retirees. i think that's regrettable. i don't believe that should have been in this budget agreement. our civilian work force has

already contributed. when you add up what will be done by retirement contributions, that's over $20 billion, but we've had three years of a pay freeze and we have a way in our -- in our law where we make adjustments to our civilian work force pay each year that reflects not -- not the cost of living, something less than the cost of living. our federal work force have seen the freeze, they haven't gotten that the last three years. that's close to $100 billion contribution to the deficit. they've already done that. so they've contributed about $120 billion plus and that doesn't include, does not include the fact that many of our federal work force have had to go -- endure furloughs as a result of sequestration and government shutdowns. so our federal work force has contributed and this is a predominantly middle-class families, large number of

veterans, large number of women, large number of minorities. and they have contributed more than any other group of working americans already to dealing with this deficit reduction, and i find it very regrettable that this retirement contribution provision was included in the budget agreement. let me just quote, if i might from the nonprofit partnership for public service who commented to senator murray and representative ryan during the budget negotiations and i quote from what they said because i think it expresses my view and i hope the view of all the members of the senate. "as you work to put our federal government on a sustainable fiscal path we encourage you in the strongest terms to treat the federal work force as the considerable asset that it is and ensure that it's appropriately trained, compensated and resourced to serve the american people with excellence for the long term. the federal civilian service is smaller today on a per capita

basis than at almost any time since the kennedy administration yet its responsibilities are greater than ever. rather than asking how to make the federal work force smaller or less expensive, congress should be asking what we need the federal government to do and what it will take to ensure we have a work force with the necessary skills and appropriate quantities to execute those responsibilities with maximum effect at a reasonable cost. proposals to freeze federal pay, change retirement contributions or reduce the work force through attrition do nothing to improve the capacity and performance of the federal government and those who serve in the civilian work force. these proposals are easy and expedient but miss the opportunity to make real sustained improvements in how the federal government manages its people." i couldn't agree more with those comments. we have a smaller work force today, asked to do more, extremely important work. these are people who are

protecting our food supply. these are the great scientists who are doing the research to give us what we need, the new technologies and health care. these are people making sure our seniors get the services they so richly need and deserve. these are people on the front line in so many different ways. and they -- our responsibility is to make sure they have the resources to carry out their mission. and, yes, we make value judgments as to what are the priorities. but put that -- put our class of federal workers through additional cuts to me was wrong and i -- i regret that that was included in the budget agreement. i also want to mention that i was disappointed that we were not able to use this last train that will reach the finish line before the -- we recess to extend unemployment insurance. 1.3 million workers are in danger of losing benefits come

january 1st. in 2014, as many as 4.7 million workers will not be getting the extended benefits, 83,000 of which are located in my state of maryland. and let me point out, we still have -- i know the unemployment rates are getting lower and we're all working to make sure they get as low as we can, but they're still substantially higher than they were when we first recognized that we needed to have extended federal unemployment benefits because of the softness in our economy. and particularly those who are long-term unemployed, it's extremely difficult to find a job. if you're unemployed and you're looking for work, it's tough out there. so the right thing for us to do is to continue these benefits for people who are actively looking for work and they can't find jobs. this is an insurance program. the moneys have been collected during good times so that we pay during these times.

the money is there. we need to make sure those benefits are continued. and i was disappointed that it was not included in the legislation. it will help our economy grow. it will help -- there's more and more economic studies that have shown that every dollar we make available in unemployment compensation returns much more to our economy in job growth. so this is hurting ourselves by not extending it, plus we're hurting millions of americans who are going to be more vulnerable in trying to keep their families together during these very challenging times. so let me just conclude by saying that, as i said in the beginning, this is an important budget agreement to get approved and i -- i strongly support it. i applaud the leadership of senator murray and congressman ryan in bringing us to this moment. my constituents believe this is a very important step forward, showing that we can compromise and work together and get our

work done. in a few days, we will bring the first session of the 113th congress to a close and leave washington to spendly holidays holidays -- spend the holidays with our families and friends. i hope each one of us will use that time to reflect on the extraordinary privilege of being a member of congress, hope each one of us will reflect on the extraordinary challenges our nation faces, and i hope each one of us will come to the conclusion that we can do extraordinary things if we work together. the american people demand and deserve no less. with that, mr. president, i have nine unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have approval of the majority and my for the leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: with that,

mr. president, i would yield the floor. mr. enzi: mr. president, i rise today to express my disappointment that the budget deal we'll soon be voting on reflects just that -- a deal. not legislation, a deal. it raises spending above the caps. now, that's the spending limits that we put in place just two years ago. it raises revenue from hardworking americans to pay for this new spending and promises to cut some spending in future. we've seen how that story ends before. we've already read that book. we'll spend more now, we'll grow the government now and ultimately the spending cuts will never materialize. i have a favorite truck driver, retired truck driver in pinedale, wyoming, who suggested that we needed to quit putting people in the wagon and get more people pulling the wagon. and what, of course, he's referring to is the way that we're growing government. every time we grow government, we put some more people in this wagon that the private sector

has to pull. yes, everybody in government pays taxes but not one person in the government pays as much taxes as they earn. so they become a part of the burden in the wagon. yes, even -- even senators are part of that burden in the wag wagon. but we're getting less and less people pulling the wagon. and they're getting a little tired of pulling the wagon. and i'm going to show some things that are happening in this budget that are making it even tougher for them to pull the wagon. so, mr. president, this is not the right path forward. my constituents back home in wyoming and americans across this country deserve better. we talk about how we have reduced the deficit. reduced the deficit? yeah, that means that we used to be over -- overspending a trillion dollars a year and now we're only overspending $500 billion, which is half a trillion. that's still overspending. and families across america know

that you can't keep spending more than you take in. is there any indication that this causes a problem? we've been experiencing some of the lowest interest rates in the history of the country, which means the federal government has been able to borrow its money for less than it ever has been before. a few months ago, i went to one of these bond sales. it was $40 billion worth of bond sales sold in 30 minutes. people in other countries had so much courage -- confidence in the united states that they were willing to pay us to take their money. they put in bids of negative interest rates. they paid us to take their mon money, to keep it, to make sure that it was secure. and they believed that it would be secure. so they paid us a negative interest rate. now, at that particular bond sale, the interest rate was .86% to borrow $40 billion. that's what it averaged out at.

last week we did bond sales. last week we sold $30 billion worth of bonds. i don't know how many minutes it took to do that but it was a relative short period of time, probably less than 30 minutes as well. do you know what the interest rate was? 3.90%. in just a few months it's gone from .86% to 3.90%. is that factored into this budget? i'll bet you it isn't. if that interest rate keeps going up, if it hits 5%, we're not going to be able to do nearly as much as we're doing right now. we've got to pay our interest first, otherwise we have bankrupted the united states and proven it. when we talk about raising the debt ceiling, it's a minor thing compared to being able to pay the interest on the debt. and if it keeps going up significantly, we and our kids and our grandkids aren't going to be able to pay the debt. that's what i hear across wyoming.

that's what i hear across america. and so what are we trying to do? we're trying to come up with a reasonable amount of spending for the united states. this budget doesn't do it. now, because members are going to be voting on a deal rather than a bill that had the opportunity to be improved through the committee process with feedback from other members, we won't have the opportunity to discuss the potential unintended consequences and address them before they become law. i just heard 15 minutes of that discussion from the senator from maryland, who knows a whole bunch of things that are in this thing that he's upset with. and i, quite frankly, think he ought to be upset with. but it didn't -- i'm on that conference committee. and when the deal was made, we read about it in the papers just like everybody else. we didn't get any special notice that there had been a deal made.

and on conference committees, i've -- i've seen the deals be made before. i've never seen one made by so few people before. and this one, there was a democrat from the senate and a republican from the house and the two of them came up with a conclusion that this is what we should have. well, that's not too bad, provided it goes through a normal process, which means we get to make some amendments. now, when you make amendments, some -- some pass, some fail. but at least you get to bring up the unintended consequences that are in -- that you see in there and that's why we have so many people in congress, a hundred here and 435 on the other side. that's so we have a whole lot of backgrounds looking at everything that happens around here from a whole lot of perspectives so maybe we can stop the unintended consequences. but that's only if it goes through a normal process. so far the tree is filled on this bill. what's that mean? that means no amendments allowed. take it or leave it. no matter how you -- what you think of it, forget it.

so we're going to have some unintended consequences that are going to come out of this and they're going to become law. now, for example, i -- i applaud the proposal, it would limit access to social security's death master file to prevent identity theft and individuals from fraudulently claiming government benefits and tax refunds associated with those who have passed away. that's a good idea. however, i'm concerned that certain organizations that use that same death master file for legitimate business purposes that benefit consumers may have their access restricted. if we discussed these issues in committee, we might have been able to address them. perhaps with a sensible solution. perhaps in a way that would have protected the identity and still protected the benefit of the consumer. the budget deal makes a permanent provision that would require states to pay a 2% administrative fee to the federal government for the collection of mineral royalties.

this only affects a few states, particularly wyoming, so negotiators and the administration sees an easy pot of money. we saw this same situation play out last year when the federal government saw a pot of money associated with the abandoned mine lands that primarily go to wyoming and spend it on an unrelated highway bill. when the federal government first started to withhold the mineral royalty money owed to states, i introduced legislation with senator barrasso and representative lomus and a bipartisan group of legislators from affected states to stop it. each of those states is fully capable of collecting their own share of mineral revenues without help from the federal government. so we shouldn't have to pay for that. we'll continue to reverse this unjust practice. and another fascinating little thing was when we did the sequester, the money that comes in from federal mineral royalties to the federal government was considered to be revenue. the money that went out, which is by law to the states, was considered to be revenue to the

states that pass through the federal government, then the federal government took 5.3% out of it. until, of course, we started having a lot of success at reversing both this 2% that i just talked about and the stealing of the federal mineral royalties and suddenly the federal government said oh, that was a mistake, you're going to get your -- you're going to get your full half of the federal mineral royalties, less, of course, the 2%. now, another little problem, the deal raises premiums that private companies pay the federal government to guarantee their pension benefits. that's something we've always insisted on. we've always said that the companies need to pay a fee so that if they go out of business, the people that they promised a pension to will get at least 60% of what they were promised. and that's supposed to be a trust fund. a trust fund to be able to pay those people if the company goes out of business. we've addressed that a number of times. we've held it sacrosanct until a couple of years ago.

now, this raises the premiums that's -- that's gentle for a new tax, a premium's a tax. if every company has to pay another $200 per employee that receives a pension, that's a t tax. now, it's -- if it goes into the trust fund, maybe it's a fee, but here's the real kicker. this money that we did doesn't go to the pension benefit guaranty corporation. so it's a tax increase. it doesn't shore up this trust fund. it will be spent on discretionary programs and it will be spent this year. but it will be collected for 10 years. how many people out there in america get to take their next 10 years worth of revenue and spend it this year and then not worry about it? nobody that i know of. employers are still in the process of implementing and

paying for a tax of $9 billion increase called for in last year's highway bill. and that, again, is a 10-year tax to build highways for two years. when that highway bill comes up, where are we going to steal the money next time? well, there's always the social security trust fund and a whole bunch of other trust funds out there. i can hear the yelling about that. and i will join the yelling about that if that's even considered. but if you can tap it in the private sector, undoubtedly you can tap it in the government sector as well. $9 billion increase -- that was for the highway bill. now we have another $200 per employee, so we've got another $9 billion increase that's put on the backs of the private sector industry, the ones pulling the wagon that i talked about. to put it simply, over two years, the flat-rate premium will have increased over 40% and over three years the variable-rate premium -- which is a tax if it doesn't go io