program that senator kennedy and i put through a number of years ago and a temporary extension of key medicare extenders that need immediate congressional action. this will give the relevant committees time to reform these programs in a responsible manner. for years members of congress have been pushing for legislative fixes that will help rein in our unsustainable entitlement programs to ensure that they're around for future generations. i personally have been working very hard on this effort. in 2013, i put forward the separate reform proposals to medicare and medicaid that were designed to be bipartisan in hopes that i could jump-start the conversation on entitlement reform. i shared those proposals with

anyone who would listen and even some including president obama who would not. today i'm happy to say that two of those ideas the limitation on the so-called medigap first dollar coverage and more robust means testing for medicare parts b and d are included in the house's s.g.r. bill. for years the idea of bipartisan medicare reform seemed like a pipe dream particularly as president obama and his allies in congress demanded that any changes to the program be coupled with significant tax hikes. but here we are just a few votes away from aenacting meaningful medicare reforms into law. i want to commend speaker boehner and minority leader pelosi for their efforts to reach this bipartisan deal on this legislation. they both deserve a lot of credit. as do those who are voting for this. -- over in the house. in addition to the leaders of the relevant committees, their work and their willingness to set aside partisanship for the

greater good have been vital to this effort. this has not been easy by any stretch of the imagination. it was also encouraging to hear today that president obama says he intends to sign the bill. think about that. specifically he said, about this s.g.r. legislation -- quote -- "i've got my pen ready to sign a good bipartisan bill" -- unquote. i commend him for that. it's my understanding that an official statement of administration policy will be forthcoming. this is super. this is something that we ought to all applaud and be ready to do. i'm not here to say that the house bill is perfect. of course it's not. i'm aware that some of my colleagues here in the senate are hesitant to support this package and have made public statements indicating as much. ultimately i think anyone who is looking for a reason to vote no on the house bill could probably dig through it and find something to oppose.

this is true of any bill of this magnitude, especially in a divided government. although i do have to say solve strawman arguments raised over the past we can or so against this legislation have been interesting to say the least i know there are senators who have in their minds a vision of what for them would be an ideal solution for s.g.r., chip, or any of the other parts of this legislation. need i have my open thoughts how i'd like to improve this bill. but i've been around long enough to know anyone who waits around for a perfect bill better be prepared to wait for a very, very long time. we've waited long enough for a solution on s.g.r. it's time to get this done. this is a good bill and it's coming at the right time. the time to act is now. i can't imagine another bipartisan opportunity like this coming around again any time soon and i've been informed my members of the the house -- of the house this is the last time

they're going to increase s.g.r. and take care of it. so we got to take this and get it through. anyone who thinks we can continue to put this off to wait around for the perfect bill to come together is fooling themselves. make no mistake if we don't do this now we're looking at many more years of last-minute costly s.g.r. patches and i've been told the house is through they've done their job and it may be a long time before you can get another patch. which means that we've got to do the job here. or every physician in this country is going to hate everybody in this senate. well they shouldn't hate everybody. there are some of us pushing hard to get this done. let's get this done, mr. president. i hope all of my colleagues will support the house's s.g.r. package especially if it's -- as big a vote as i've been indicating here today. i think it will be a big vote. i think they deserve a lot of credit. it solves some problems that we

couldn't otherwise solve. it also makes some good changes to some of our entitlement programs that are long overdue. i want to commend speaker boehner and minority leader pelosi and others who are helping to get this done. i want to commend them for the work that they're doing. mr. chairman i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you mr. president. over the course of the next few days we are likely going to debate a series of amendments relative to the ongoing nuclear negotiations with iran. and it's my hope that over the course of this debate on a handful of amendments that may be offered that the way in which we conduct this debate and the way in which these votes come out is going to unify us rather than divide us. a lot has been made over the

partisan division that has been created over the past few weeks with respect to our support for negotiations despite the fact that we have all said, republicans and democrats that our priority, our hope is that we can divorce iran from a nuclear weapons future through negotiation rather than through military action. despite the fact that historically we have all tried to hew close to the idea that politics stops at the water's edge we understand the limitations of our ability to substitute ourselves for the administration when negotiatening foreign policy with foreign powers. and so my hope is that this debate unites us bras there is a lot to be united about. the fact is -- there is a lot to be united about. the catastrophe that would be wrought if iran were to obtain a nuclear weapon. this is a country that hats pledged to wipe israel, america's ally, off the map.

this is a regime that has killed americans and sponsored funded and organized terrorism all over the world. and it's not just about iran because we know what would happen in the region. their sunni rivals would have no choice but to become nuclear powers themselves. so the stakes are high and we are all united around the common belief it should be the policy of the united states, the policy of the senate to make sure that iran never obtains a nuclear weapon. but i want just make a couple of additional points clear that should underscore the debate that we're going to have about that simple unifying principle. the first is that these negotiations that are occurring are about the future of iran's nuclear program. they aren't negotiations about iran's support for terrorism or iran's role in fighting isis or iran's other weapons programs. i know this is hard to hear because the resolution of these other pressing issues is instrumental to preserving the

security of america and of our allies. but let's all be clear that this set of negotiations is about the future of iran's nuclear program. and for congress at this point to step in and essentially move the goalposts and say that we will only support the outcome of these negotiations if they satisfy another set of concerns that we have, grave concerns about iran's policy in the region and the world is disingenuous because we all supported a sanctions regime intended to get them to come to the table and talk about their nuclear program. and, frankly it becomes easier to solve many of these other vital issues if we remove the question of iran's potential nuclear weapons program from the laundry list of items with which we have great concerns about. second, let's talk about the role that congress can play and how again that can be unifying if we choose to do it in the right way.

if the negotiations fall apart then we are likely all going to stand together in imposing a new set of sanctions on iran. i don't think there's disagreement at all within this body about the fact that within days of those negotiations failing, we will be back here imposing new crippling costs on the iranian economy. and if this agreement succeeds and there is ink put to paper this congress reserves the right, has the right has the ability to statutorily stop the implementation of that agreement from going forward. once we are able to review it and look at its parameters, conditions and elements. we don't need to vote on sanctions legislation today we don't need to vote on legislation establishing our ability to review the agreement because we already reserve those powers we already have the ability to pass sanctions in the event of failure or to vote on approval or disapproval in the

event of success. but we aren't in the room negotiating this deal. and so if you want to respect our proper place in the constitutional order then i think it makes sense to love to those who are negotiating who say that a bright, bold blinking signal of division within the american political system would be detrimental to negotiations. i want to see the product of these negotiations so that i can use my power as a united states senator to vote them up or down. but if we take steps now if we vote on balanced budget amendments -- on budget amendments to undermine those negotiations by precipitously passing sanctions legislation or setting up a process of approval or disapproval before the negotiations take place then i am limiting and i am decreasing the likelihood that i will see that deal. we have a role to play, but

that role comes at the end of these negotiations rather than in the middle. lastly if we are serious that the policy of the united states is to stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon, then we have to be serious about what the consequences of the failure of negotiations truly are. it is disingenuous to suggest that there are credible and likely option other than -- options other than military action should these negotiations fail. especially if the united states congress takes steps that allow the world community to blame us for the failure of those negotiations. why is that? because the easy thing to do would be to simply reinstate global sanctions if the negotiations fall apart try to squeeze iran even more tightly. but that's unlikely to happen if

it's the united states that gets blamed for the failure of the negotiations. why? because our partners in those sanctions won't join us. they will walk away and either lift the sanctions or look to cut their own deals with iran. it's easy to say that we'll just put the sanctions back in place, but it's impossible at best very difficult to do, if we're doing that unilaterally. and let's be honest about what military action really means. it means setting back iran's nuclear program by three to five years but also means setting off a catastrophic series of events in the region that will do great harm to our allies, great harm to u.s. security interests drag us into a conflict that in the end will not serve u.s. national security interests especially given the fact that it will only temporarily halt iranian nuclear ambitions. now, i still say that we should keep on the table the potential

of military action but we should just be honest about the fact that if we take steps to undermine these negotiations today, if we are blamed, the united states congress, for these negotiations falling apart, then it becomes virtually impossible to put these sanctions back together. thus giving us only one option, a military option one that has grave and consequential aftershocks for the united states and for our allies. so mr. president i simply come down to the floor knowing we are going to set in motion a series of amendments many surrounding iran's nuclear program tomorrow. i'm hopeful that the results of those will be to signal this congress' unity a unity that we have expressed many times over that we will not allow iran to obtain a nuclear weapon and that a negotiated settlement is the preferable way to do that,

reserving for ourselves all of the inherent powers of this body to pass sanctions if they fail, to approve or disapprove of the deal if the succeed -- the negotiations succeed. the best way to disabuse iran of the notion they can ever obtain a nuclear weapon is in the next 48 hours for this congress to stand united, united in our position to guarantee a nonnuclear weapons future for iran. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: i ask the proceedings under the pending amendment be laid aside and i would like to call up the roberts amendment number 352. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kansas mr. roberts proposes amendment numbered 352. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. roberts: thank you mr. president.

get right to the subject, this amendment would restrict federal government employees from receiving bonuses when they are delinquent in paying their federal taxes. during this time of budgetary constraint federal agencies are looking for cost savings in order to avoid staff furloughs and cuts to important federal programs. given these constraints the government should not spend scarce taxpayer dollars by giving bonuses to federal employees unwilling -- let me underscore unwilling -- to pay their tax bill. we just learned this week that according to the internal revenue service as of september 2015 304,000 owe delinquent

taxes. that's an increase over what was owed last year. now, while most federal employees play by the rules the great majority, it is incredible that the delinquent tax debt of federal employees has reached this level. let's look at one agency. everybody's favorite agency, the internal revenue service. last year the treasury department's inspector general for tax administration issued a report on the internal revenue service bonuses awarded to personnel who have violated the tax laws or who have been subject to serious infractions of employee policy. according to the inspector general, close to $3 million was awarded to staff with violations on their records with about half of that amount going to people who had violated the tax code. other personnel at the i.r.s. received catch bonuses or other

awards, approximate despite being cited -- awards, despite being cited for drug use making threats, fraudulently claiming unemployment benefits and misusing government credit cards. in fact, the report indicates that close to 70% of the i.r.s. personnel received some sort of personal reward. that's incredible. that's remarkable. when you think about the sorts of problems your average taxpayer has in getting help from this agency. under my amendment seriously delinquent -- now let me underscore that again -- seriously delinquent, people who will not pay their back taxes federal employees regardless of agency would be ineligible to receive a bonus or cash award. however, if you make even the most minimal effort to pay your debt or you are suffering a hardship the amendment would

not block a bonus from being made. awarding personnel bonuses to employees have continued outstanding tax liabilities today is unconscionable and should be stopped. i look forward to support for this sensible restriction on award given to employees who owe the federal government. i would now like to call up roberts amendment 462 and i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kansas mr. roberts proposes an amendment numbered 462. mr. roberts: i ask consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. roberts: simply put this amendment would repeal obamacare's medicine cabinet tax. the health care law now prohibits individuals from using funds in their medical savings accounts such as an f.s.a. or an h.s.h., to purchase over-the-counter medications

without a prescription. 50 million americans participate in f.s.a.'s and other health savings accounts. these accounts allow individuals to set aside their own money each year on a pretax basis to pay for health care expenses such as copayments and prescriptions or over-the-counter medications. now, rather than promoting cost-effectiveness and accessibility, this provision instead directs participants to potentially more costly less convenient more time-consuming alternatives. further, it injects unnecessary confusion and complexity into a system that was previously straightforward and aziz easy for consumers to utilize. this provision of obamacare restricts americans' choice and flexibility in how they manage their health care expenses and adds yet another burden on our physicians. it should be repealed and folks

should be allowed to spend the funds in these accounts as they see fit. mr. president, i yield back the balance of my time and i hope for support for these two amendments when we begin the proceedings. mr. vitter: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments and call up my amendment number 515. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from louisiana, mr. vitter, proposes an amendment numbered 515. mr. vitter: i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: the clerk will report by number. the clerk: the senator from louisiana, mr. vitter, proposes an amendment numbered 515. mr. vitter: thank you mr. president. mr. president, this amendment number 515 is in response to a clear and a growing and a dangerous trend. specifically for the department of education to inappropriately intervene and use carrots and

sticks and weapons sometimes to intervene in state education policy to promote certain agendas over the rights of the states. this really began in ernest in 2010 when the u.s. department of education began offering funding through "race to the top" grants to states participating in a state consortium working towards a -- quote -- "common set of k-12 standards." over time, it became increasingly clear this was all about mandating common core and forcing it on states. in 2011, the department of education took the next step. it offered waivers to no child left behind in exchange for adoption of -- quote -- "college and career ready standards in reading, language arts, and mathematics and aligned assessments." again, this is clearly all about

common core. now, during a time when states are facing increasing budget shortfalls and an inability to meet the progress requirements outlined in no child left behind behind funding and waivers were a very enticing option and so they were a set of carrots and sticks that had been impact. this heavy-handed coercion of states to adopt specific standards and assessments is unprecedented and somethinged we should all be against -- and something we should all be against. it goes against the tradition of state and local control of public education. my amendment specifically would create a spending neutral reserve fund to rightly prohibited the federal government from taking similar actions to mandate incent or coerce states to adopt the common core state standards or any specific set of standards instructional content curriculum assessments or

programs of introduction. my amendment would also allow states who have all right adopted certain standards to opt out without fear of the federal government pulling back those incentives or grants or waivers. i firmly believe that these decisions should be in state and local hands and this is really crossing the line into the federal government using coercive tactics in that regard. so i urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment. and, mr. president with that i would also ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments and call up my amendment number 8111. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. vitter: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with and that it being recordbereported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report by number. the clerk: the senator from louisiana, mr. vitter, proposes

amendment numbered 811. mr. vitter: mr. president this separate amendment is about a different but equally important topic. it restores our pledge to america that congress as well as the president and the vice president and their political appointees live under the same rules washington passes on america, specifically with regard to obamacare. so this amendment is my no exemptions for washington from obamacare amendment. and it says that members of congress, the president the vice president their political appointees go to the exchange for our health care just like every other american does who's going to the exchange. no special rules no special exemptions no special subsidy. we live by the law going to the exchange just like all of america. this amendment specific willing does not apply to

congressional -- this amendment specifically does not apply to congressional staff, it's about members of congress the president the vice president their political appointees. mr. president, i think it should be the first rule of american democracy that what washington passes on america it lives with itself. same way same rules. no special exemption no special subsidy, no special rules. we specifically passed that with regard to obamacare and the exchanges when we passed a senate floor amendment in this regard. unfortunately mr. president after the passage of obamacare and when washington folks understood what that language meant, there was a furious attempt to get out from under that language. and that ended up being -- resulting in a special executive order and o.p.m. rule

promulgated by president obama. that completely frustrates the clear language and intent of that senate floor amendment. this budget amendment would say no, we're going to live by what we said and we're going to apply to ourselves obamacare and getting our health insurance on the exchanges just as we would have that operate with regard to all other americans. thank you mr. president. i urge support for this amendment as well. mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. perfect merkley: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that my -- mr. merkley: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that my intern colin offenberg be

allowed privileges of the floor throughout the day. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: i ask unanimous consent that i can utilize a felt pen during my presentation. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: thank you very much mr. president. today i rise to discuss the budget blueprint that we're debating here in this chamber and that we'll be voting on here on the floor of the senate shortly. in evaluating this budget, this budget produced by my republican colleagues i'm asking the question -- is this a budget designed to work for working americans? that's just a simple core question. if your vision of america is that you want families to thrive thrive then you're going to design a budget designed for those working families to thrive. so that is a key question as we discuss this blueprint. it is certainly clear that a budget designed to work for

working americans means jobs. it means quality affordable education. it means retirement security. it means financial fairness for consumers. and it means taking a tax code that is stuffed full of favors for the wealthy and well-connected and instead directing resources to establish a foundation for working families to do well, to provide a solid foundation for raising their children so they can get a good start in life. so i thought we should go through and evaluate how this budget performs on basic items related to the success of working families. and so we have here a little scorecard so that we can keep track. middle class budget report card, senate grand old party budget. what does it do?

let's start by looking at investment in infrastructure. europe is spending 5% of its gross domestic product on infrastructure and china is spending 10% and america only 2%. we're vastly underbuilding our infrastructure, which means we're failing to create good life paying jobs now which are the foundation for american -- good-paying jobs now which are the foundation for american families success. and we're failing to make this investment. and, indeed, we have a huge infrastructure deficit. and there's no effort to address this deficit in this budget. alloh the budget does have symbolic language that recognizes theoretically the need to invest in infrastructure but doesn't direct resources to that effect. and so in committee and on the floor, we have offered amendments to say let's make a real investment in this effort, not just happy words. well, in committee, it was

rejected on a party-line vote 10-12 and then yesterday here on the floor senator sanders offered an amendment that would take and direct a substantial investment to -- taking and closing egregious tax loopholes and directing those resources to building the infrastructure in america would create 9 million jobs across this country. and what happened? the republicans resoundingly rejected it. why is that the case? why do they not see the need to invest in infrastructure in america? voting as we have 45 democrats saying yes let's create jobs and 52 of my colleagues across the aisle saying no way no how. we are not going to do the important work to address the deficit in infrastructure. so unfortunately this budget

gets an "f" when it comes to infrastructure. well surely as we turn to education, we'll find that this budget does somewhat a better job. we all understand that early childhood education has an incredible return, so surely this budget invests in head start to give our children of challenged families the ability to start on a path to success. we know we have a world knowledge economy in which education is essential. so surely this budget provides for more eligible children thob able to -- to be able to participate in the head start program. but if that was your assumption, you will be sorely disappointed because this budget makes cuts to head start that would kick 110,000 children off the program over a ten-year period. direct damage to the success of

110,000 children. and that's before you combine it with sequestration cuts. at that point the estimate is that it would cut 620,000 american children out of head start over the coming decade. that's just wrong. and let's turn to higher education. one of the biggest stresses for american families is the gallup ing inflation in tuition and the declining ability of programs to cover that portion a small portion of that tuition for our most financially challenged families. so surely this budget invests in pell grants. i certainly would have expected it to but indeed we find it cuts $101 billion over ten years out of pell grants. in other words this budget is designed to continue to close

the doors of opportunity for students from financially challenged families across this country. i believe in opportunity. i believe in the american dream. but this budget, the republican budget believes in closing the doors on opportunity in this nation. and that's just wrong. well grants aren't the only component of higher education and helps make college affordable. another piece is interest -- low-interest loans. most families are going to have to borrow to help finance higher education. in fact, of those students who have college debt, the average debt today coming out of college is about $26,000. that's the average. many of our children have debts of $50,000 or $75,000 or $100,000 coming out of a four-year college. and that's a debt that really kind of feels like the size of a home mortgage, is a millstone

around their neck. so surely this budget lowers interest rates on our students' loans so that they can refinance their loans to take advantage of the current low interest rates. wouldn't that be a wonderful thing to do, to create opportunity? well, we had a vote on this floor for an amendment to do just that, to enable our students to refinance to take advantage of the current lower interest rates. and my republican colleagues defeated that amendment 53-46. and not only that, but their budget has in it a provision that gets rid of the no-interest period when a student on a stafford loan is in college and gets rid of the six-month grace period no-interest grace period when a student graduates from college. this is estimated for a student who is starting their college

in 2015 to increase by about $5,000 to $7,000 the cost of their interest payments as they repay their loan. so head start savaged in this budget. just simply wrong. pell grants savaged in this budget. just simply wrong. interest rates or interest accruing increased and that's just wrong. so it's clear there's no commitment to education in this budget. the foundation for opportunity this budget, no question about it that's an "f" on education. well let's turn to another area. hopefully we can get a better grade. food security. food security for american families. a lot of families are having a pretty tough time putting food

on the table. what do we find? we find that this budget has a $660 billion reduction over ten years in programs that support low-income americans explicitly including the snap program. the snap program the name we now use for food stamps. you know, there is a quote attributed to queen marie antoinette, the husband of louie xvi. in this report during the revolution, she was reported to have said when told that the citizens were protesting the high price of bread because they remember -- they were spending 50% of their income on bread just on bread. and she said let them eat cake. that has become a symbol of a

ruler completely out of touch with the challenges faced by ordinary citizens. so what do we have in this budget? we have in this budget provisions that say to hungry children across america to children of challenged families across america let them go hungry. so here too only one grade is earned by this budget in food security and that's an "f" for failing our children on food. well let's turn from our children to our seniors. on medicare, for example well, this budget recreates the medicare doughnut hole. this is the doughnut hole that seniors fall into when they get

no coverage to help them buy drugs after an initial period in which they got some subsidy and then they fall off into a cliff into the doughnut hole. 53,000 seniors would pay more for their drugs in just my state next year. well that's about five million seniors across the course of this country who are now going to be ensnared in this doughnut hole. moreover this budget cuts $430 billion out of medicare. so whether it's getting rid of key provisions designed to help our seniors like eliminating the doughnut hole or simply solid investment in our health care program for seniors this budget hereto gets a failing grade. that's an "f" for failing our seniors on medicare.

how about consumer protection? you know, we made a lot of progress in consumer protection. we used to have consumer protections split between a whole series of agencies. the key agency in all of it was the federal reserve. the federal reserve has monetary policy personnel in the penthouse. that is really what they're paying most attention to and folks kept coming to the federal reserve and saying there's new predatory home mortgages that is going to do enormous damage to families across the country. and the federal reserve had no response to this. they did not act. in fact, they had consumer protection locked in the basement of the federal reserve and they threw away the key. they simply were totally uninterested. so back in 2009 and 2010, we said let's consolidate these programs that have responsibility for consumer protection to one agency, the consumer financial protection bureau. and let's make sure -- let's make sure that this agency has

the funding like every other financial regulator so that it can't be essentially starved to death by those legislators who on behalf of powerful special interests don't believe in consumer protection. you know, the cfpb, the consumer financial protection bureau, it has returned $5 billion back to consumers who were cheated. and it has prevented billions more from being stripped away through other predatory practices. and so you would think that all 100 members of the senate would stand up and say we want a budget that strengthens the consumer financial protection bureau because it does so much that is right in ending, cheating predatory practices against so many americans. but, no, what we have in this budget is an effort to eliminate the financial independence of

the cfpb, if you can think about it as oxygen to a scuba diver folks want to be able to step on that air house or constrict that air hose, starve that agency to death. so this budget gets an "f" on consumer protection. well, certainly since this budget does so much to cut food, cut head start cut pell grants, increase interest rates fail to invest in infrastructure, since it does so much damage to our seniors on medicare, certainly it's asking for some sacrifice from our richest americans. some bit of sacrifice from the corporate fat cats who are getting egregious tax loophole benefit. and particularly one loophole that i think drives every american citizen nuts is a

loophole that subsidizes the shipment of our jobs overseas. can't we all agree to shut down that loophole? well, you would think so. but we had a vote on shutting down this loophole in committee and on party-line vote said, no, we're going to leave this loophole in place. so in terms of protecting american jobs by shutting down a loophole that funds our adversaries overseas or our competitors overseas, this budget it gets an "f." well, how about tax fairness for the middle class? i heard a lot of happy words about fighting for the middle class. is there something in this budget that proceeds to say the best off are going to pay their fair share so that middle-class americans get a better break? well in 1995, the richest americans paid about 30% of their adjusted gross income in

taxes. but by 2012 that rate had dropped to 17%. so does this budget rectify that? does this budget say folks at the top end should pay their fair share? no it doesn't. not one slim dime extracted on behalf of fairness from the best off in our society. so what we have here, a tax to the middle class. no tax fairness. an "f" grade on tax fairness. attack the middle class in every possible way attack the children attack security, fail on infrastructure, fail on consumer protection and proceed to protect all the egregious provisions for the very best off in our society. well that's unfortunate to see such a dramatically terrible

budget put before this body. and, mr. president i think the american citizens can only be deeply disappointed to see a budget put forward intended to accelerate and increase inequality in our nation, destroy our jobs, ship them overseas underfund food security failure on investment; a failing grade all around. we can do much better. thank you mr. president. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i'm sure the senator from oregon is right, we can do much better. we sure as hell didn't do any better for the last six years. so anyway, mr. president, i want to talk for a few minutes -- and i have a couple of my colleagues waiting, so i won't take as long as perhaps i would like. i want to talk a minute about

sequestration. sequestration was a poison pill that originally was designed to force republicans and democrats to sit down together and reach a bargain that would entail increasing some revenues and also budget cuts. and the looming ax that would fall out there was sequestration which was believed at the time that because sequestration was so terrible that that would force the two parties together and come to an agreement. well, we know that they never did and we know now ever since 2011, we have been living with sequestration. while we have been living with sequestration, the world has turned into a place of enormous turmoil and threats to the security of this united -- our nation which has escalated

dramatically in those intervening years. and at some point i'd like to come to the floor maybe later showing the world in 2011 and the the world in 2015. thanks to a feckless foreign policy and leading from behind and abandoning our allies, this administration has caused the world to be in more turmoil not in just the opinion of this senator but every -- every witness before our armed services committee has agreed on one thing. these witnesses have been madeleine albright and henry kissinger and george schultz and brent scowcroft and per zip i ask. and i could go on and on. the smartest minds of america we have had before our committee and every one of them has said exactly the same thing. no matter whether they served under a republican or democrat administrations, they said they have never seen the world in

more turmoil. so sequestration if there ever was a reason for it, is long gone. and the fact is that we are not going to be able not only to defend this nation but we are going to put american lives at risk. that is not the opinion of this senator from arizona. it is the opinion of every one of our service leaders that, again, that we have had before our committee. so now we're not repealing sequestration but we have this -- and it is a gimmick -- the overseas contingency operations, which were not designed for this but is now a way of increasing our -- our spending on defense. now, i would much rather have had us face the issues square, head-on and increase our defense spending in the normal way in the budgetary process. that didn't happen.

so now as we begin our votes on on -- on the budget i'm faced with two choices and this body is faced with two choices. either the increases in overseas contingency operations or go back to sequestration. those numbers are not acceptable acceptable. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to go ahead and pass this budget and give our military what they need. in fact, they need more than what is in this budget before us but at least it is some ability to address the challenges to our nation. now, mr. president i just want to mention that we're not only talking about defense of the nation. we are talking about the lives of the men and women who are serving in the military are, in

the view of our military commanders that their lives are being put at risk. now, i don't know how, i don't know how anyone in this body, no matter how they feel about defense, could vote in a way that would put the lives of the men and women serving in the military at greater risk. i don't know how you would do that. all four service chiefs, question from senator king of maine "american lives are being put at risk." secretary of defense testified before the committee -- and i quote -- "sequestration threatens our military readiness, the size of our war-fighting forces, the capability of our air naval fleets and ultimately the lives of our men and women in uniform uniform." national defense panel put together with some of the brightest minds in america -- quote -- "unless sequestration is reversed the united states could find itself in a position

where it must either abandon an important national interest or enter a conflict for which it is not fully prepared." i don't know anybody who's more respected than general brent scowcroft. by all. quote -- "absolutely i would repeal sequestration. it is a terrible way to determine force structure strategy or anything like it. it's undermining our ability to do what we need to do to retain alert for the contingencies of the world." general james mattis, "no foe in the world can wreak such havoc on our security that mindless sequestration is achieving." general january jack keen, "quest ration is not only irresponsible in the face of emerging challenges, it is down right reckless." general ray odierno "sequestration is the single greatest barrier to the effectiveness to our armed forces to its training ready and modernization. i assure you that ending sequestration is the most

prudent measure we can take for ensuring that our military is able to meet the demands of global security now and in the future." general odierno went on to say "the choices we must make to meet the sequestration level funding are forcing us to reduce our army to a size and with limited capabilities that i am not comfortable with. if we follow this path to its end, we will find a hollow army. if we do not have the resources to train and equip the force our soldiers, our young men and women are the ones who will pay the price potentially with their lives." that's from the chief of staff of the united states army:"the young men and women are the ones that will pay the price potentially with their lives." mark welch the chief of staff of the air force "the vulnerability of sequestration

will encourage our adversaries worry our allies, limit the number of current operations we conduct and increase the risk to the men and women who fight america's next war." secretary of state george schultz one of the most revered men in america "sequestration seems to me like legislative insanity." secretary of state madeleine albright, "i'm very concerned about sequestration and the deep cuts that have been taken. i think it jeopardizes america's military reach." director of national intelligence said "just based on my best professional judgment and having served in this business for a long time, i'm very concerned about it. and if we revert to sequestration in 2016 the damage to the intelligence community will be quite profound." the chief -- chairman of the

joint chiefs of staff "in an age where we're less certain about what will happen next but quite certain it will happen more quickly we will be further away and less ready than we need to be. simply stated, sequestration will result in a dramatic change in how we protect our nation and how we protect and promote our national interests." general john kelley, he's the commander of the u.s. southern command, "if sequestration returns in fiscal year 2016, our ability to support national security objectives, including conducting many of our essential missions will be significantly undermined." i would tell you in latin america, the southern command will be, just simply put a catastrophe. it will essentially put me out of business." he goes on to say "if sequestration happens, i will be down to maybe one coast guard maybe two coast guard cutters. that means" -- this is it is commander of the southern command -- the commander of the southern command who is responsible for our southern hemisphere -- he said, "that means of the 158 metric tons of

cocaine i would expect to get this year i'll probably, if i'm lucky, will get 20 tons." admirable william gorton, who's the commander of the northern command "sequestration targets both current and future readiness and risks a hollow force undertrained and underprepared for today's emerging threats." my friends i -- i will come to the floor one more time with a map, a map of the middle east and a map of other parts of the world where the united states is under almost unprecedented threat. so we are faced with the prospect of threats to the united states of america and the men and women who are serving it in the uniform or moving forward with o.c.o. which is very unsatisfactory but a way through this at least for one year. and i would point out that this is only for one year and ability

of the defense support to plan is in great jeopardy is very -- makes it incredibly difficult. but we are where we are. i understand the need for -- and my friends on both sides of the aisle -- that we need to increase defense spending, there's a lot of needs in the country and all of them are and compelling. i don't know anything more compelling right now than what our military leaders have told us and that is that we're putting the lives of the men and women serving in uniform at risk risk. so i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as dire as the deficit is -- and it is a challenge to the future of our children as we know -- right now we are facing a far greater risk. i hope we can pass this budget with the o.c.o. in it and then sit down and seriously work it to repeal this damocles sword that is called sequestration.

mr. president, i yield the floor floor. a senator: mr. president? mr. mccain: mccain: i ask unanimous consent the quotes i read be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. gardner: i ask unanimous consent the spending amendments be set aside and i be allowed to call up my amendment number 443 and that the amendment be made pending? the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from from colorado mr. gardner proposes an amendment numbered 443. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. gardner: mr. president when you walk into the capitol of colorado there in the great rotunda is a mural on the wall written by thomas pharo and it stands with a phrase, "here is a land where the line is written in water." so during this bill, i will be

offering amendment number 443 to make sure we're protecting that lifeblood of colorado, our water, to make sure that our state property rights, state law is able to prevail against incursions of the intrusions by the federal government. over the past several decades we have watched as the federal government has attempted to assert bypass flows or federal reserved water rights that impede our ability to carry out private water rights and to, indeed protect colorado private water rights. whether it's the imposition of a bypass flow on a ditch that is going through forest service ground or perhaps it's the new forest service ski area water rule or the ground water rule that they are discussing, which once again challenges the supremacy of state water law. this government has a long history of yielding to state water law making sure that state water law is supreme when it comes toe carry out and manage our state water rights. over the years bipartisan

coalitions in colorado, wyoming and beyond, have emerged to make sure we are protecting our watt rights, to make sure that the federal government isn't coming in outside of our system of water law -- in colorado, it's extremely complex. we're the only state in the union that carries out our water law or surface water rights in the way that we do. unfortunately, whether it's the forest service or the department of interior, department department of agriculture, other agencies have continued to seek their ways to impose a water right at the federal level without going through the same channels, the same water law system that other people in colorado do, people who are by right by law and by our constitution have the rightful ownership of colorado water rights and the water permits. and so this amendment protects communities, businesses, recreationists, farmers and ranchers that rely on these privately held water rights and permits from federal takings. the amendment recognizes the long-standing authority to manage water according to our state law. today water rights and permit

holders face challenges and this can come to an end when we put into our budget our principles, our purposes and our efforts to make sure that we put policies forward in the next several months to make sure that we are respecting colorado water law. mr. president, i urge all my colleagues to support this amendment which is a vote to protect constitutionally held private water rights and permits. and i yield back my time. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president i ask consent the sanders amendment number 777 be modified with the changes at the desk. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mrs. murray: and i ask consent to have the following senators as cosponsors to his amendment -- boxer markey, schatz. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: and mr. president i ask consent the pending amendment be set aside so that i may call up amendment number 801. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from washington mrs. murray proposes an amendment numbered

801. mrs. murray: mr. president i ask consent further reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: mr. president as many of us have said here before, a budget is far more than simply numbers on a page. a budget really is a statement of values and priorities and the kind of nation we are and the kind of nation we want to be. for democrats that means our budget should help us move towards an economy that is built from the middle out not from the top down. and a government that works for all of our families not just the wealthiest few. when democrats wrote our budget last congress we made our values and priorities crystal clear. we put jobs, economic growth and the middle class first. we replaced the automatic budget cuts evenly across defense and nondefense investments with an equal mix of responsible spending cuts and revenue raised by closing wasteful tax loopholes used by the wealthiest americans and biggest corporations. we addressed our long-term

deficit and debt challenges fairly and responsibly and we kept our promises that we've made to our seniors and our families. now, the republican house didn't simply accept our budget, of course, but i am very proud that coming out of that terrible government shutdown at the end of 2013, we were finally able to break through that gridlock and dysfunction to reach a bipartisan budget deal that put in place a budget for two years, prevented another government shutdown and rolled back the worst of those automatic cuts. that deal wasn't the budget i would have written on my own and it wasn't the one that republicans would have written on their own but it did end the lurching from crisis to crisis it helped workers helped our economy and made it clear there is bipartisan support for rolling back sequestration in a balanced way. our bipartisan deal was a strong step in the right direction

and i was hopeful that we could work now together to build on that. but, mr. president republicans have taken a very different approach this year. instead of building on our bipartisan budget deal, this republican budget would be a huge step backwards. instead of moving us toward a government that works for all of our families, this budget would push us towards a government that works for the wealthy and well connected but actually leaves the middle class and working families behind. mr. president, we know there is bipartisan support to replace sequestration in a balanced and fair way. not only did we prove that with our bipartisan budget deal last time but democrats and republicans across the country have continued to come out against the senseless cuts to defense and nondefense investments. but in this republican budget, a budget that aims nearly 70% of its spending cuts at programs that combat poverty that cuts

more than a trillion dollars from medicare and medicaid, that calls for a total of $5 trillion in spending cuts, in this budget my republican colleagues couldn't even find a single penny to pay for more investments in education or research or defense investments for this coming year. just to put that in perspective, the budget agreement that i reached with chairman paul ryan in 2013 found $85 billion in savings to pay for sequester relief for over two years. that's less than 2% of the total savings that this republican budget claims to have in it. and yet the across-the-board cuts to both defense and nondefense priorities remain in place. why is that? well instead of using just a tiny fraction of the enormous cuts in this budget to pay for the investments both republicans and democrats agree must be made it relies on a gimmick. an -- it increases o.c.o.

funding to appear to patch over the problem on the defense side but then doesn't actually allow for the o.c.o. funding to be even spent and does nothing at all for nondefense investments like education and research and jobs or infrastructure. mr. president, i know our republican colleagues are sincere when they say they want to find a way to increase the caps especially for defense purposes. but this budget in front of us today simply does not do that. gimmicks and lip service are not enough for me and i don't see why they're enough for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle especially given the deliberate choice not to use any of the $5 trillion in cuts in this to pay for some relief, a choice that should greatly concern anyone who genuinely wants to fix this problem. so mr. president i come to the floor to offer another way. a way that would make it clear that we will, in fact, fix

those senseless across-the-board cuts known as sequestration. my amendment builds on the bipartisan budget act of 2013 and extends the replacement of sequestration through fiscal years 2016 and 2017. this amendment maintains the principle that democrats will not abandon that sequestration should be replaced evenly across defense and nondefense investments and it builds on the idea that sequestration should be replaced with a mix of responsible spending cuts and new revenue raised by closing wasteful tax loopholes by providing defense with real resources to replace the sequester cuts, it gets rid of the o.c.o. gimmick that was added in committee. and finally it includes language to automatically release the additional defense and nondefense funding to the appropriation committee upon the increase of the statutory caps similar to language that we passed in the previous budget. now, mr. president we all know there's going to have to be a solution to these automatic

cuts. president obama has said that he would not sign spending bills that lock in sequestration. and the fact of the matter is we simply can't make the investments we need to make on both defense and nondefense if those caps remain in place. we should be able to give our appropriations committees the guidance that they need to write responsible bills at bipartisan levels and not wait for another crisis to hit before we can come together to make a deal. mr. president, i know there are republicans who understand how devastating the automatic cuts are for defense and nondefense investments. i know there are republicans who understand the value of investing in jobs and infrastructure and education and in research. i know there are republicans who have seen the impact of sequestration in their states, the way i've seen it in my home state of washington and i know there are republicans who look at this budget and wonder why it couldn't use some of the

trillions of dollars in cuts to reinvest in american innovation or in our defense investments. i'm ready to work with any republican truly interested in building on the bipartisan budget deal in a balanced and responsible way and i know my colleagues will stand with me. because, mr. president to us this is about middle-class economics, plain and simple. we believe when working families do well, they spend more, they boost demand and they grow the economy in a healthy and sustainable way. we believe when low-income families are offered a hand up and an opportunity to get a job or earn more or join the middle class, that means more taxpayers, less need for housing, less need for nutrition support and means a growing economy. we believe that the wealthiest americans and biggest corporations should pay a bit more for their fair share and we believe that replacing these automatic cuts in a fair and responsible way is an important part of moving towards an economy that works for our

families not just the wealthiest few. so i really urge my colleagues to support this amendment so we can agree now on responsible and realistic top-line spending numbers for this year so that we can restore those investments in critical defense and nondefense programs and so we can start right away in the appropriations committees to do our work and not wait until september for another crisis, another government shutdown, and the whole country looking at us as if we can't manage our way anywhere. so mr. president if my republican colleagues have any other ideas for how to get this done, my door is open, i'm ready to get to work, but i hope we can support this amendment when we vote on it later this afternoon so that we can get to work and not have another summer, another fall where the american public looks at congress wondering if we can't get our act together. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: i rise today to speak briefly, i know we have a little backup here see i'll try

to combine two things to save some time. briefly on an amendment that i have already introduced to the budget bill but which also qualifies as a waste of the week. so i'm going to do a twofer here. as i i have said previously, i'm coming down to the floor every week to point out a waste of funds that if eliminated and addressed can save the taxpayer a lot of money. we've got the thermometer growing in terms of the amount of money we've been able to offer in terms of programs that simply are not working can be reformed or changed or dropped and save the taxpayer a lot of dollars. this week's waste addresses a well intentioned federal program that's moved away from its original intention of addressing an important social need. officially known as the supplemental nutrition assistance program or snap, this program is more commonly known to the american public as food stamps. this program started under president kennedy in the early 1960's. it was started as a temporary

life line to those in need. over time, the program grew, it was 30 years later or more than 30 years later when the republican congress with a democrat president, president clinton, reformed welfare in 1996 and during that reform they made reforms to the snap program or the food stamp program, adding some qualifying information. these reforms required that in order to qualify for food stamps able-bodied adults had to register for work and accept a job if it was offered to them or go to a training program in order to qualify for food stamps. that was in the law, it was -- the welfare reform program that was supported by both democrats and republicans under a democrat president and a republican

congress and history has shown that it worked. well in 2009 our current president, president obama as part of the stimulus law modified this program and put it in a position where it now is spending a lot more money and removed essentially those requirements that were agreed to both by democrats and republicans. as one journalist said, today snap is an open ended income supplement program that discourages work. according to "the wall street journal," between 2008 and 2013 food stamp recipients grew by nearly 69%. in contrast, the poverty rate increased just 16.5% during that same period. but with our economy recovering and more job opportunities becoming available i have introduced this amendment to reinstate the requirements that were agreed to, as i said, in a bipartisan way under president clinton.

this legislation if we make this reform will -- has been scored as saving at least $19 billion over a period of time. no small amount. it's good stewardship of our financial resources at a time when we need to have that stewardship, because of the crunch we are now in. what we adhere to the evergrowing thermometer that tries to take us to $100 billion of savings for the taxpayer is a $19 billion chunk of savings that has been documented as achievable justfully simply by returning the program to the place where it was implemented by both republicans and democrats. mr. president, inspection to the aforementioned amendment i would like to also discuss very briefly would two other important amendments i've introduced to the gate on the budget bill now before us. therefore i ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside and that

i be allowed to call up amendment number 595 and that the amendment be made pending. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from indiana, mr. coats proposes an amendment numbered 595. mr. coats: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the amendment -- reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coats: mr. president this amendment which i'll briefly state here the intent here which i've introduced along with senator warren would help -- warner, would help increase cybersecurity by calling for information on cybersecurity attacks and threats. millions of americans have been impacted by cyber attacks on companies and universities to mention a few and the coats-warner amendment would help strengthen our defenses against cyber attacks by calling for greater information sharing but in a way that protects individual privacy and civil liberties. also mr. president i now ask consent that the pending amendments be set aside and that i be allowed to call up

amendment number 368 and that the amendment be made pending. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from indiana, mr. coats proposes an amendment numbered 368. mr. coats: mr. president, this amendment calls for states to have the flexibility to seek innovative medicaid reforms that can both strengthen the program and make more efficient use of taxpayer dollars. my state indiana, has been a leader in innovative medicaid reforms. and the advancement of consumer-driven health care under the leadership of our former governor, michigan daniels, and our current governor mike pence. i believe states should have the opportunity to innovate the medicaid program by useing flexible that are transparent and that hold states accountable. this program carefully developed under two governors has now

provided those in indiana of lower income opportunities to enter into a program that uses innovative cost-saving techniques but provides quality health care with participation by our providers and the hospitals, with participation by our state and with requirements that give the consumer more choices and provide for more quality of care. it is something that i think can serve as a model as we go forward trying to address our health care needs and reform of the affordable care act or repeal and suggested substitutes that will achieve the goals of providing quality care to people that are of low income but at a much lower price and with much less regulation that's currently within the a.c.a. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. kirk -- mr. kirk:i would like to speak on my amendment which is 545, building on the menendez legislation to call for consequences if iran should cheat on its obligation on its agreement with the united states. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. kirk: we should stand for the principle remembering the 290 americans who have died at the hands of iranian terror, including 13 americans from illinois. let me read their names: james lewis from illinois. adam shell from illinois.

calvin balmer and david gray from illinois and johnny phillips jr. who went to church with me in wilmmete and gary pullman killed at the hands of iran terror. in the memory of these americans we want to make sure we carry out a sense of the senate that expresses our views that if iran cheats on this agreement there should be sanctions. i would call on all members to make sure they back the old bipartisan coalition of menendez -kirk, and i would yield back my time. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: i'd ask unanimous consent that the time until 4:45 p.m. today be equally divided between the managers or their designees and that at 4:45 the senate vote in relation to the following amendments in the order listed with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the votes: stabenow number 755 barrasso number 347 sanders number 777 as modified on climate change, blunt number 350 on e.p.a., hatch number 796 ton medicare, senator bennet-stabenow number 601 on medicare. senator murray number 801 on sequester replacement. senator cotton number 481 on israel. i further ask consent that there be two minutes equally divided between the managers or their designees prior to each vote and that all votes after the first in this series be ten minutes in length. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. enzi: for the information of all senators, there will be up to eight roll call votes at

4:45 p.m. and i allocate time to the senator from -- the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. daines: mr. president last night i introduced number 388 to ensure state and local governments are the driving force between national monument designations. i ask unanimous consent to add senator hatch as a cosponsor to my amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. daines: this is a fair and commonsense proposal that i believe members on both sides of the aisle can support. before major land management decisions are made by the federal government, the people affected most by these designations should have a seat at the table and have their voices heard. so i was confused when i heard the senior senator from nevada claiming this morning that my amendment would in some way gut or repeal law providing the ability for national monument designations to take place. that is simply false. in sharp contrast, it is

designated to strengthen the law by ensuring that the voice of the people is heard as designations are considered. after all it's the people that are affected by these decisions not politicians in washington. as a fifth generation montanan and life long sportsman i treasure and am committed to protecting public lands. i deeply appreciate that landmarks like pompey's pillar in montana or lehman's cave in nevada have been protected for future generations but there is a difference between targeted designations to protect historic landmarks and designating hundreds or even thousands or millions of acres against the will of the states and local residents. the senator from nevada is saying that washington d.c. should have more influence over local land use decisions than the folks in western states who live and work on this land every day. i disagree. i believe that the farmers the ranchers, the sportsmen the community members and the state and local government should have a say in local land decisions.

i remind him that the 1906 act was designed to prevent damage to specific sites of historical, scientific or cultural significance. as the law states -- and i quote -- "the smallest area compatible with the proper care in management of objects to be protected." the law was not intended to block out access or damage operations of nearby landowners. and the law was not intended to be used as a way for a president, as they're leaving office to iewn lats rale make decisions without consulting the states and local communities. strengthening the role of locally impacted residents and states is vitally important because, unfortunately presidents of both parties have also abused the antiquities act. designating unjustifiable excessive large sale pieces of ground through unilateral action

despite local opposition and opposition from land users. let me remind the senator from nevada of the grand staircase escalante national monument designation. local residents oppose it. since it was proposed in 1996 there's been reduction in grazing. development of a coal mine stopped. local rural communities are struggling. wouldn't it have been better to protect the grand staircase in a way that also protected local communities. or look to new mexico where the oregon mountains desert peaks national monument was designated in 2014 may against the will of local communities. representative steve pearce had a bill to protect 50,000 acres of land which he worked with local residents and affected communities to implement. that bill was ignored and the administration instead introduced a monument of 500,000 acres that touches all the way to the mexican border. during president obama's first term an internal document

surfaced from the interior department reeling the obama administration's plans to use the antiquities act to designate 14 new national monuments comprising of millions of acres across our country. one of the areas on the list is 2.5 million acres of land across northern montana connecting canada's grasslands national park to the bitter creek wilderness study area. in the middle of this designation are significant swaths of public lands. this potential designation is very contentious in montana which i believe montanans must have a voice in determining whether or not it goes forward. during a recent house natural resources committee hearing interior secretary sally jewell confirmed that she wants public input and local input in antiquities act designations. so why would anyone oppose elevating state and local input on these designations? despite the claims made by the senator from nevada, my amendment will not repeal the

antiquities act. it's not going to gut the law. it will not repeal existing protections on our national parks and national monuments. it will not prevent future designations from being made. my amendment simply ensures that local residents and the states have a meaningful voice in determining monument designations. in 2010, former interior secretary salazar stated during a senate hearing that the administration would have a conversation and dialogue with people locally and across the country before any monument designations occurred. my amendment simply holds this and future administrations accountable to what they said they would do. and it protects the voice of the people in decisions like this. you know, protecting the voice of the people should not offend members of this body. it should be our abiding commitment. it should be our priority.

mr. president, i request unanimous consent to set aside the current amendment and call up amendment number 465. the presiding officer: is there objection? is there objection, the clerk will report. mr. daines: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to dispense with further reading of this amendment. the clerk: the senator from montana, mr. daines, proposes an amendment numbered 465. mr. daines: my amendment will establish a neural reserve fund for legislating to make sure the a.t.f. does not infringe on second amendment freedoms. this amendment ensures american sportsmen aren't left with empty relics good for nothing more than mounting on a mantle, symbols of a bygone era of american freedom until even the relics are taken. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to set aside the current amendment and call up amendment number 387. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection.

the clerk will report the amendment by number. the clerk: the senator from montana, mr. daines, proposes an amendment numbered 387. mr. daines: mr. president i request unanimous consent to dispense with further reading of this amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. daines: article 1 section 8, clause 7, of the u.s. constitution specifically provides for the establishment of the u.s. postal service. however the postal service currently teeters on the brink of insolvency. a january 2015 congressional research report states the postal service reached a statutory borrowing limit of $15 billion and has run up more than $40 million in deficits since fiscal year 2007. in the midst of the postal service financially tenuous circumstance state committees are granted a postal discount which can amount to as high as a 26% reduction in the standard rate paid by nonprivileged

users. congress would do well to put state and national political committees on the same playing field as ordinary americans and the postal service would certainly benefit from these groups paying the ordinary postage rate. particularly in rural states like montana the postal service plays an important role in the vitality of our communities and it connects people. accordingly i ask my colleagues to join me in supporting budget amendment 387 which would signal the senate's willingness to address the postage discount provided to state and national political committees. thank you and i yield back my time. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mr. franken: thank you mr. president. i rise today to speak in opposition to the republican budget resolution. i would ask -- there is time restraints here, so i'll go as far in my speech as i can and then ask that the remainder be included for the record.

and please let me know -- is that done without objection? i'd like -- the presiding officer: without objection, yes. mr. franken: thank you very much. and could you tell me when 7 minutes have elapsed? the presiding officer: the senator will be so notified. mr. franken: thank you, mr. president. the budget that the republicans in the senate have presented imagines a future where we give even more tax breaks to millionaires and special interests while pulling the rug out from under working families. instead of addressing the major challenge facing our nation today that middle-class families continue to face in an economy rigged against them and their efforts to obtain a better future for themselves and their family this budget is fundamentally misaligned with the values of working americans. over the last 30 years we've seen wall street and giant corporations make record profits

and middle-class families have been left behind. according to the economic policy institute, over the last 30 years wages for the top 1% rose almost ten times as fast as those for the bottom 90%. last year objection fan calculated that the 400 wealthiest individuals in our country have more wealth than the bottom 150 million americans. as a result, today the concentration of income at the very top has risen to levels last seen in the 1920's, a time of vast inequality that ended in economic disaster for our nation. we have a responsibility to turn back this dangerous trend and minnesotans know how to do it. we've done it in minnesota. we know how to grow our economy. we know that we grow it from the l middle out not the top down. paul wellstone had a saying. we all do better when we all do better.

and we all do better when people in the middle have money to spend. and middle-class people are -- a higher percentage of them are entrepreneurs. and there's more social and economic mobility when there's a strong middle class. everybody does better, we all do better when we all do better. even those at the top do better. we saw that during the clinton administration where every quintile was helped. minnesotans know that a middle-class budget would ensure health care access and fair workplaces for all americans so that families can concentrate on doing the best job they can as workers, as community members and parents and daughters and sons instead of worrying about whether taking time off for a

sick child will get them fired or whether a long-term illness will bankrupt their family. so we could and we should be crafting a budget that supports middle-class families and those aspiring to be in the middle class, opening up economic opportunity, helping to lay the foundation for economic growth and supporting the innovation that is key to a dynamic economy economy. we could have a budget that makes smart investments finds sensible savings and makes sure that everyone is paying their fair share of taxes but that is not the budget that the republicans have crafted. instead of stability and opportunity for middle-class minnesotans, the republican budget proposal would slash billions of dollars in investments that grow our economy and the republican budget would do nothing to close the loopholes that disproportionately benefit large corporations and super-wealthy individuals. since 2010, we've seen more than

$4 in spending cuts for every $1 in revenue. the new republican budget would make that situation even worse. this budget would bring that to $10 in spending for every $1 in revenue, and these cuts are coming directly at the expense of programs that serve middle- and lower-income families. the budget would cut over $6 million in job-creating research in my state of minnesota alone where we're making crucial investments in areas like renewable energy and health innovations. in fact, the economic policy institute said the cuts in the republican budget would result in over $45,000 -- 45,000 jobs lost in minnesota. it also would cut funds for workforce training to help minnesotans compete for 12 21st century jobs.

workers would lose access to job studentopportunities according to the department of labor. and according to the skills gap that exists, that just makes no sense whatsoever. we cut education -- or, the republicans would cut education in this. we're talking about head start programs. head start 620,000 children would be cut from head start. we'd lose those slots over ten years. let me tell you something about head start. quality head start program a quality early childhood education program has a return on investments of $7 to $16 per child. and i'll tell you why. quality early childhood childhood education, the child is less like lie to be in special ed, less likely to be left back a ground has better health care outcomes the girls are less

likely to get pregnant in adolescence, they graduate from high school in at higher rate, they're more likely to go to college and graduate from college, they have better jobs, pay more taxes and they're much less likely to go to prison. that's why you have an $8 to $16 return on each -- for each kid that has a quality childhood -- early childhood education. this is -- this is wrong. it's also wrong because kids are only three years old once, and they're beautiful children, and they deserve this, and they -- and their parents deserve this. this is wrongheaded. but not only -- the republican budget not only hits recallly childhood education it hits pell grants -- pell grants. in minnesota 160,000 students last year were able to go to college because of the pell grant program.

when my wife fisherman and i -- when whymy wife frannie and i went to college, it paid for a full college education. the further cuts will make it even harder for schirn to pay for college and yet my colleagues want to cut pell grants further. we shouldn't be doing that and that's why i'm offering an amendment to restore funding for pell grants in this budget. one of the keystone x.l. of prosperity is -- un-one of the keys of prosperity is infrastructure. the presiding officer: the senator has consumed seven minutes. mr. franken: okay. let me end then by just saying that this budget -- and i'll ask that the -- i did already ask that the rest of my remarks be included. but this is not even smoke and mirrors. this -- this -- this asks for --

it makes up -- it's riddled with gimmicks and this is unfair -- fundamentally unfair to working americans. i.t.it's the same trickle-down economics that we've seen fail time and time again. so i ucialg my i urge my colleagues to reject in budget and embrace a real plan that supports middle-class families and those aspiring to be in the middle class. we need a budget that builds on the progress that we've made since the great recession and takes us to a better future for all americans. thank you. thank you mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: how much time does the democratic side? the presiding officer: the democratic side has five minutes remaining. mr. sanders: mr. president i wanted to respond and speak as to why i am in opposition to the

blunt amendment which requires a point of order for a carbon tax. the scientific community is not in debate. the scientific community tells us that climate change is real, it is caused by human activity, it is caused by a very significant increase in carbon emissions. the scientific community tells us that climate change is already causing devastating problems in our nation and around the world. and what the sign p tsk community tells -- and what the scientific community tells us if we do not as a planet -- not just the united states, china india, the entire world -- if we do not get our act together, the planet that we're going to be leaving for our kids and grandchildren will be substantially less habitable than the planet that we enjoy. we have a moral responsibility to respond to this crisis and we have to use every tool that we

can in our arsenal. what does that mean? it means we need to invest heavily in wrnlgization, in energy -- in weatherization, in energy efficiency, so we don't waste energy, it means we have to move aggressively to wind, solar, biomass and other sustainable energies. it also means that we have to say to those people who are producing carbon in significant amounts, who are causing the problem, you know what? they cannot continue to do that with impunity. they're going to have to pay a tax on that. so we can argue about how we go forward in trans-forelling our energy -- in transforming our energy system, how we cut carbon pollution, but we should not pick out one particular approach and say that it's going to require 60 votes to go forward. so i strongly object to senator blunt's amendment. what we will be doing is offering a side-by-side, and

this side-by-side could not be simpler. the american people, the scientific community are pretty clear that climate change is in fact real and that it is caused by human activity. and what we will do is offer a side-by-side to establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to recognize that climate change is real is caused by human activity and that congress needs to take action to cut carbon pollution. now, what is happening all over this country is young people want action, and while many of my republican colleagues refuse to acknowledge the reality that climate change is caused by human activity, outside of capitol hill, many republicans in fact do understand that. we have prominent conservative economists and economic advisors

like nobel laureate economist garry becker, mitt rom nigh's -- mitt romney's former advisor and art laffer have all called for taxing carbon. itconservative republicans who understand that people who are causing the problem can't do that with impunity. just more recently george shuttle -- i think we all know who george schultz is, the former secretary of the treasure and secretary of state under presidents nixon and ronald reagan published and op-ed in "the washington post" calling for a carbon tax. idea of a carbon tax is something that is gaining more and more support from democrats republicans, independents, people who are very worried about what is happening to our environment. so mr. president in terms of the side-by-side, i personally

am strongly opposed to stro senator blunt's amendment which just looks at a tax on carbon, and i should tell you that as a coauthor along with senator boxer, with regard to a carbon tax, we put huge amounts of money into helping those families who might see higher utility bills. that's probably the main source of funding allocation. so we are aware of the problem and we address it in our legislations and it should be addressed in any legislation. but once again in terms of the side-by-side, we are going to give our republican colleagues an opportunity -- a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment 434. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the clerk will report by number. the clerk: mr. wyden proposes an amendment numbered 434. mr. wyden: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that the

reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from wyoming u. mr. enzi: my friend from across the aisle raised an issue on climate change -- since my friend from across the aisle raised the issue on climate change i'll use the balance of my time also talking about that because i'm going to urge my colleagues to vote "no" on amendment number 777. we voted earlier and it was a unanimous vote that climate change is real, and i believe that virtually everyone agrees that over time the earth's climate has shifted varying levels of speed and in various directions. i had an opportunity to go on a trip to china and we visited one of their labs over there where they were looking at climate change, and i happened to have the opportunity to tour the labs with the senator from illinois senator durbin. one of the amazing things was as we finished up the tour looking at five different kinds of ways that they were measuring

what caused climate change and how real it was i remember senator durbin saying to me, i'm sure glad that senator inhofe isn't with us because this backs up everything that senator inhofe has been saying. so it's something that hasn't really been resolved among all the scientists, even in some countries that have some different opinions than we dovmentdo.but today every snowstorm every heat wave,heat wave, we changed it from global warming to climate change. one of the comments that i've made is that instead of spending the $5 billion on one side toker prove there is climate change and d 5 billion on the other side to prove there isn't climate change, maybe we ought to spend just $10 billion fixing

things. i think there are some problems with the amendment and i hope that my colleagues will vote "no." i see that the -- it's almost time for the vote, so ...

the presiding officer: under the previous order there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation number 755 offered by the senator from michigan, ms. stabenow. ms. stabenow: thank you mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: -- to support the stabenow amendment. this amendment would establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund that would do a few things. first of all ensure the clean water act is focused on protecting water quality upholding existing exemptions in the clean water act for agriculture, ranching and forestry that existed for decades so our farmers and ranchers have the certainty they need. it would ensure we rely on scientific evidence as we examine the impact that water quality has on the different types of water bodies, and provides certainty to landowners and rural communities under the scope of the clean water act.

i appreciate my colleague from wyoming and his approach. i believe mine is much more specific. it is deficit-neutral and spending neutral so it allows us to offset any changes that we would like to make to support these efforts through either revenues or spending cuts as opposed to spending neutral reserve fund. and most importantly it makes very clear support for both the clean water act and agriculture. thank you very much. mr. enzi: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: mr. president we'd be happy to take that amendment. we prefer to do it by voice vote because we have a lot of votes to do. ms. stabenow: i actually would like a record roll call. i appreciate that very much, mr. chairman but i will ask for a record roll call on the amendment. mr. enzi: i think she's asked for the yeas and nays. ms. stabenow: i've asked for the yeas and nays. excuse me. thank you. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be.

the yeas and nays are ordered. the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: i support the senator from michigan's amendment. i think the e.p.a. is out of control. i agree. it's right to rein in the e.p.a. and to restore current protections and exemptions for rural america. a key area where the stabenow amendment falls short is excluding cities, suburbs and the job-creating businesses for working families that reside outside of rural america. my amendment which will be next addresses concerns raised by the u.s. conference of mayors, the national association of counties who want certainty certainty regarding the e.p.a.'s power grab. the senator from michigan does things to protect farmers and ranchers from the e.p.a. my amendment is supported by the american farm bureau. this support is because my amendment is specific and holds the e.p.a. and the corps to the promises that they have already made. thank you, mr. president.

mr. enzi: is there opposition? ms. stabenow: if there is time remaining, mr. president, i would just simply say that i think my amendment is stronger and much more specific and in fact upholds two goals. supporting the clean water act which has for 40 years protected us with clean fishing and drinking water and our beautiful great lakes certainly we all hold dear but is also specific for farmland and communities. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 99, the noes are zero. the amendment is agreed to. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment numbered 347 offered by the senator from wyoming mr. barrasso. the senate will be in order. the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: mr. president i rise in support of my amendment 347, an amendment to hold the e.p.a. and the amendment corps to their word about the scope of their proposed waters of the united states rule.

the administration says that there's a lot of misunderstanding with their proposed waters of the u.s. regulation and what it covers. time and time again, we have heard from the e.p.a. and the corps that this rule would not cover things like puddles rain water, snow melt and irrigation ditches. the barrasso amendment would help to make sure this rule is crystal clear by listing out those things that the e.p.a. and the corps has indicated or led folks to believe will not be covered under the rule. so if you believe the waters of the u.s. rule doesn't go far enough, that the federal government should be in the business of regulating puddles in your constituents' back yards, then vote against my amendment, but that's what voting against my amendment would mean. that's why i urge a yes vote on this amendment to protect the waters of the united states, and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second?

ms. stabenow: mr. president. the presiding officer: there is a sufficient second. the yeas and nays are ordered. ms. stabenow: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: mr. president we just voted together on a very specific amendment that makes it clear that all our traditional agriculture, forestry efforts all of the local government efforts that are occurring in this country right now will continue even under a revised clean water rule, which by the way, is only having to be done because of two supreme court decisions that create a tremendous amount of confusion for communities and farmers and ranchers. unfortunately, regardless of what was just said, the barrasso amendment is very general very broad, it doesn't add any clarity, it would keep the

confusion that is out there. i would urge that we vote no. we have already made a clear statement here in the senate. we don't need to go back to what the supreme court did when in 2006 they had five different opinions coming from nine different justices and created chaos. we don't need two different amendments that say two different things. we just did something very clear and specific. let's hold that and vote no. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the amendment. the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not the yeas are 59, the nays are 40. the amendment is agreed to. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 777, as modified, offered by the senator from vermont mr. sanders. the senate will be in order. mr. sanders: thank you mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont.

mr. sanders: mr. president this amendment could not be simpler. the scientific community has been very clear in telling us that climate change is the great environmental crisis of our time. it is caused by human activity. it is real, and it is already causing devastating problems in the united states and throughout the world. this amendment establishes a deficit-neutral reserve fund to recognize that climate change is real. it is caused by human activity, and that congress needs to take action to cut carbon pollution. let us stand with science. let's pass this amendment. mr. enzi: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: mr. president i'm using the minute from our side. i have a unanimous consent request for a committee to meet during today's session of the senate. it has the approval of the majority and minority leaders and i ask unanimous consent the

request be agreed to and it be printed in the record. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. enzi: and mr. president i'd also ask consent to withdraw the blunt amendment number 350. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the amendment is withdrawn. mr. enzi: do you wish to speak on the amendment? mr. inhofe: me. i'm over here. here. mr. inhofe: this week wasn't the senator from vermont's week. in the "wall street journal" on monday, "the myth of climate change: 97%" -- where they say the 97% figure came from 79 respondents out of 23erbgs 146. secondly today is the day that they finalized the annual gallup poll. the gallup poll came out and stayed made the statement that the current level of worry on global warming and climate remains at record lows, right behind the loss of tropical

rainforests. so don't vote for this based on the assumption that the 97% figure is accurate or that people really care that much. the presiding officer: question is on the amendment. mr. sanders: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not the ayes are 49. the nays are 50. the amendment is not agreed to.

under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 796 offered by the senator from utah mr. hatch. mr. hatch: mr. president? may we have order? the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. mr. hatch: mr. president we all know medicare is on an unsustainable course. independent -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. please take your conversations out of the well. the senate will be in order. the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i thank the chair. independent actuaries at the centers for medicare and medicaid services, c.m.s., estimate that over the next 75 years the program has $35 trillion -- with a t -- in unfunded op gaitions. -- obligations. the trust fund will be insolvent in 2025.

the hospital insurance trust fund could be insolvent as early as 2021. at that time medicare will no longer be able to pay out full benefits to seniors. we need to reform medicare in order to save medicare. we have a moral obligation to put medicare on a sustainable path. it is crucial we ensure solvency into the next decade if we want to keep the promises made to those at or near retirement. mr. president, that's where we are and that's about all i'm going to say about it. the presiding officer: who yields time in opposition? there are 45 seconds remaining in opposition to the amendment. mr. sanders: mr. president, i think there is no objection to the amendment. if the senator would like a voice vote?

the presiding officer: if there is no further debate, all those in favor say aye. opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. mr. hatch: i thank the chair -- the presiding officer: the amendment has been agreed to. there are now two minutes of debate prior to a vote on amendment number 601. mr. bennet: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: thank you mr. president. i rise today to offer an amendment with senator stabenow to guarantee that we -- mr. president, can we have order? the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. please take your conversations out of the well. the senate will be in order. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. to guarantee we keep a sacred promise to our nation's seniors and protect the nation's medicare program for years to come. the budget we have in front of us mr. president doesn't balance our values or priorities as a country. the presiding officer: the senate is not in order. the senate will be in order. mr. bennet: thank you, mr.

president. unfortunately it misses the mark entirely for our seniors. to put it into perspective the senate republican budget cuts the medicare program by almost three times as much as the house republican budget. my amendment ensures we protect our seniors from any efforts to cut medicare beneficiaries guaranteed benefits, privatize medicare or increase out-of-pocket beneficiary spending on drugs or prevention services. in 2013, over half of medicare beneficiaries had incomes below $23,000 a year. we can't attempt to balance the nation's budget on the backs of our seniors. there's a reason why the national committee to preserve social security and medicare is urging a "yes" vote on this amendment and a "no" vote on the republican budget. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the bennet-stabenow amendment and yield whatever time remains. the presiding officer: the senator's time is expired.

mr. enzi: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: i will raise a point of order against the amendment. it would prohibit regulation on certain medicare legislation. i know all my colleagues are committed to preserving medicare. we all want medicare to be there for today's and tomorrow's seniors. right now its finances are deteriorating rapidly. however, my colleague's amendment is not germane to the budget resolution. the finance committee has jurisdiction over the medicare program. the budget committee does not. the bennet-stabenow amendment instructs the finance committee how to write a medicare reform bill language that's inappropriate to include in a budget resolution. in fact, adopting this amendment would kill the privilege of the budget resolution. for this reason, i'm compelled as chairman of the budget committee to raise a point of order against the amendment. mr. president, the pending amendment number 601 is not germane to the budget resolution therefore, i raise a point of order against this amendment under section 305-b-2 of the

congressional budget act of 1974 and ask for the yeas and nays. ms. stabenow: under section 904 of the congressional budget act of 1974, i move to waive all applicable sections of that act for the purpose of the pending amendment. i ask for the yeas and nays on protecting medicare. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. the question is on the motion to waive. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any senators wishing to vote or to change a vote? on this vote the yeas are 46, the nays are 53. the senators duely chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. the point of order is stained and the amendment fails. -- is sustained and the amendment fails. under the previous order there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote in relation to amendment 801 offered by senator from washington mrs. murray.

senator murray. mrs. murray: mr. president, the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. please take your discussions out of the chamber. the senate will come to order. the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president democrats and republicans agree, the automatic spending cuts across defense and nondefense investments are terrible policy, it has to be fixed. i'm --. the presiding officer: the senate will please come to order. please take your discussion out of the chamber. mrs. murray: i am proud that the bipartisan budget act that we passed last congress did exactly that for the past two years. it offered us a template for how we can tackle this challenge in a bipartisan way once again. that deal succeeded because it rolled back cuts to defense and nondefense equally and it did it with a balanced and responsible mix of savings and new revenue.

the amendment before us builds on that deal and extends the quiver relief for two more years. we don't need to rely on gimmicks in this budget or the hopes we're going to solve this later. we need to fix this now. in 2013 it took a government shutdown to bring both sides to the table to get a deal for this. i'm hoping we don't have to wait for another crisis and i encourage my colleagues who oppose sequestration to support this amendment. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: mr. president if we want to change the budget control act of 2011, we need to pass a bill to do so later in the year. the budget resolution cannot fix sequestration. now, this particular amendment increases both defense spending and nondefense spending without a justification. it calls for spending $148 billion more than allowed by the b.c.a. the b.c.a. required that defense programs be forced to receive

half of the reductions, that's not the case with this, nondefense limits, much work remains to eliminate inefficiencies. according to the c.b.o. there are 260 programs spending $293 billion in the 2015 budget that are not operating under a current authorization. that means the policy experts haven't done their work so we can't tell if the we need that much more money. this amendment seeks more money for nondefense, calls for increasing spending and pays for it by extracting more taxes from american taxpayers. the tax increases in this amendment total $120 billion. finally and perhaps the most important reason this proposal is the proposal damage --. the presiding officer: the time has expired. mr. enzi: i'd ask for a no vote. the presiding officer: the question is on amendment 801. if there is no further debate, all in favor say aye. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be.

the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: anyone wishing to vote or chapping their vote? -- or change their vote? if not the yeas are 46, the nays are 53. the amendment is not agreed to. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally twieded prior divided briar to prior to the vote in relation to the amendment offered by senator cotton. mr. cotton: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. members please take your discussions out of the chamber. the senate will be in order.

the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: mr. president for decades this congress has provided bipartisan support to the u.s.-israel alliance, in part because the support of the american people for the israeli people is so strong. unfortunately, for almost as long the united nations has singled out israel for unfair discriminatory treatment whether the 19775 zionism racism resolution or the recent obsession of the human rights council. it's been a long-standing u.s. council to prevent unfair discriminatory treatment against israel at the united nations. i believe it is urgent that this congress reaffirm that policy. this amendment would allow a funding mechanism to adjust mound funding to the united nations or other international institutions should they target israel for unfair, discriminatory treatment. i hope that we never need this mechanism but i believe it is critical that congress reaffirm our alliance to the u.s.-israel alliance and prevent unare fair discriminatory treatment.

the presiding officer: who he woulds couldhewhoyields time in opposition? mr. sanders: ity there's general support on this side for that. i would suggest a voice vote. mr. cotton: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any other senator wishing to vote or change their vote? the presiding officer: if not the yeas are 99, the nays are

zero. the amendment is agreed to. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: just to get things in order here can i ask unanimous consent that first senator paul be recognized simply to call up an amendment after that senator wyden be recognized to call up an amendment and for three minutes and senator coons be recognized to call up an amendment for three minutes that senator baldwin be recognized to call up and in forward two minutes senator manchin be recognized to call an amendment for three minutes and i be recognized to call up an amendment. mr. sanders: reserving the right to object. we'd like one minute to bring forth eight amendments. mr. whitehouse: can we let senator paul who is simply calling up an amendment proceed first? mr. sanders: sure. the presiding officer: is there objection to the request as modified? without objection.

mr. enzi: reserving the right to object are they going to go back in forth or just in that order? normally we allow both sides. the presiding officer: will the gentleman restate. mr. enzi: i was suggesting he revise his unanimous consent so it go back and forth on one side rather than whole bunch on one side and people waiting over on this side. the presiding officer: is there objection to the further modification? mr. whitehouse: just as i understand it, the order that i asked will be the order on the democratic side, there will be an interspersing of republicans as they come to the floor but everybody is going to be kept to two or three minutes rather than long speeches because if somebody is going to give long speeches, they should go to the end. we're trying to call up a bunch of amendments quickly. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona.

mr. mccain: reserving the right to object. the senator from kentucky and i would like to make our amendments pending if we can get that done. mr. sanders: so would we. mr. paul: mr. president? the presiding officer: without objection, everything we just discussed, so ordered. the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments and call up my amendment 940. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from kentucky mr. paul, proposed amendment numbered 940. mr. paul: i ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up the following amendments en bloc, 697, number 798 800 812

951, number 345 number 817. and dispense with all of the readings. the presiding officer: will -- the senator from vermont will you please repeat the amendment numbers. mr. sanders: sure. 697, number 798 number 800 number 2812, number 951 number 345 number 817. the presiding officer: is there objection to calling up the amendments en bloc? without objection so ordered. mr. mccain: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments and call up my amendment 630. the presiding officer: is there objection?

without objection. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from arizona, mr. mccain, proposes an amendment numbered 630. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: i ask unanimous consent the pending business be set aside to call up the pending amendment. the presiding officer:. the clerk: the senator from oregon proposes amendment 708 at the appropriate place -- mr. wyden: i ask unanimous consent it be considered as read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: i this would simplify the tax credits that help students afford college education. students and their families too often miss out on opportunities in the tax code to help pay for their education. students are taking loan debt that weighs them down for years. second mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the

pending business be set aside in order to call up wind-murray-stabenow amendment number 791. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from oregon mr. wyden for himself and others proposes amendment numbered 791. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. president wyden: this would delete the reconciliation instructions when it comes to tackling the big economic challenges in this country is best legislation is bipartisan legislation. using the procedural tactic called budget reconciliation is a guaranteed path to partisanship and gridlock. it would be particularly damaging in the cause of tax reform where democrats and republicans understand just as in 1986 there is an opportunity for common ground. i also think it would be very unfortunate to use reconciliation to repeal the affordable care act. if it's repealed, america goes back to the dark days when health care was reserved for the healthy and the wealthy.

finally, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the pending business be set aside in order to call up amendment number 870. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from oregon mr. wyden proposes amendment numbered 870. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. president wyden: this amendment deals deals with the stop and go tax cut known as extenders. last december the senate approved the package of tax extenders for the 2014 year. that law expired before the ink could dry. by new year's day taxpayers were thrown back in the dark about what they would owe in the future. let us not repeat that mistake. this grab bag is nobody's idea of perfect tax policy. my amendment would accepted a clear signal the senate is ready to put these tax incentives in place through the year 2016. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. mr. heller: i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending

amendments call up my amendments en bloc, numbered 4 a 53, 542 457 456. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection the amendments are pending en bloc. the senator from nevada. mr. heller: i ask consent that reading of the amendments be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from nevada. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments and call up the following amendments en bloc, 343, 391 392 394 and 802. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. coons: i ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coons: i come to the floor to speak about our nation's war against isis and why we must pay for it responsibly. as our armed forces continue their mission to destroy isis which is months underway we need to consider another part of our strategy paying for that war. this is not a new concept. our nation has a long history of paying for our might missions. in fact, every war since the revolutionary war to the first gulf war was paid for. through our nation's armed conflicts new revenue streams provided the resources our military needed they reminded our people we needed to contribute to the war. i fear we have forgotten this important lesson from our history. we cannot write another blank check for war. paying for the war against isis is the right thing to do. it is responsible as we continue to debate the authorization on this war in congress we need to be honest with the american people and each other about what it will

cost our nation. that's why as we debate the budget this week i've offered an amendment that requires us to raise the revenue to pay for the fight against itches. the american people deserve no less and i urge my colleagues to join me to pay for our war against isis and ensure we fight this battle together as one country. with that i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. ms. baldwin: i ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment, number 432 which is cosponsored by senators schumer sanders, and stabenow. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report the amendment. ms. baldwin: i ask unanimous consent the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment by number. the clerk: proposed amendment number 432. the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. ms. barehand: my amendment would

create a free community college program making a bold investment in our nation's students, its work force and the future of our economy. it pays for this investment in a balanced way. ms. baldwin: my amendment would actually reduce the deficit by enacting the buffet rule, asking millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share of taxes while giving our students a fair shot at the opportunities a higher education brings. i believe every student in america deserves a fair shot at an affordable education and education should be a path to the middle class not a path into debt. inspired by programs in tennessee and chicago this spring president obama proposed a program that would allow students to attend community college for two years at no cost. this will give students who are willing to work hard the opportunity to obtain a

certificate industry recognized credential or associate's degree that provides the skills they need to access in-demand jobs or earn credits they can transfer into a four-year institution. i would urge all my colleagues to support the baldwin-schumer- stabenow amendment in order to support higher education to support free community college and invest in our students and our work force. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside in order to call up baldwin amendment number 436. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from wisconsin, ms. baldwin for herself and others proposes amendment numbered 436. ms. baldwin: i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the

reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. baldwin: amendment 436 is cosponsored by senators warren, mccaskill and whitehouse. this amendment is very simple. is it would strike section 405 of the chairman's mark. section 405 eliminated a point of order against reconciliation legislation which either increases the deficit or would reduce a surplus. i see no good reason why we should be making it easier to increase the debt and deficit that the majority claims to care so much about. if their reconciliation legislation is so important then they ought to pay for it. if this amendment fails to be adopted, we will find find ourselves in the same situation we were in the early 200's. in 2001 and 2003, the

then-republican majority used reconciliation to pass a $1.3 trillion tax cut in 2001 and then another $ed $350 billion tax cut in 2003. both of thesests were entirely un--- both of these efforts were entirely unpaid for not a single dime was offset. so so much for fiscal responsibility. it wasn't until 2007 when chairman conrad took control of the senate budget committee when a point of order was put into place to stop reconciliation from being used as a tool to add to the deficit. let's not use the reconciliation process to add to our deficit. i urge my colleagues to support my commonsense amendment. thank you mr. president. i yield back. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia.

mr. manchin --: i ask unanimous consent that amendment 694 be brought up to the table. i ask that the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: mr. manchin proposes an amendment numbered 694. mr. manchin: i ask unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. manchin: we cannot agree that climate change is real and that humans do contribute to it. we can also not deny that we will rely on fossil fuels for years to come. coal is one of the two base load fuels that will run 24/7, rain or shine. with new regulations we are facing new regulations. during the polar vortex, the p.g.m. system that provides electricity for west virginia and electricity we're using right now in d.c. will be running full capacity. saw a record number of platte outages when they were most needed. further threats could result in rolling blackouts which puts lives in vulnerability.

the department of energy supports a group of 1,000 projects including $7 billion of private-sector investment. representing 5,000 jobs across the united states. research supported this program has led to cleaner burning plants over the past decades and we have reduced pollutants and increased efficiency of coal-fired powerpoints powerplants. the best way to reduce impacts of climate change while still ensuring a reliable electricity grid is to invest in the research and development of advanced fossil fuel technology and to combat climate change i would ask you to support my amendment. and all of our colleagues. mr. president, i also request unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that amendment 578 be brought to the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from west virginia -- mr. manchin: i ask that the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. manchin: this would encourage our country to

increase our investment in combating meth abuse. meth has devastated comientses across the country. meth can cause violent behavior and changes the way the brain works causing long-term emotional and cognitive problems and domestic meth labs endanger communities and the environment. in 2013 in west virginia law enforcement officials seized 533 meth labs. that was an 86% increase over 2012. i have fought to address meth abuse from every angle reducing access to the products used to create meth. this is a are national problem not just a west virginia problem. it requires a national response. during committee markup, i had a similar amendment efforts to reduce abuse passes by a voice vote. this drug addiction is devastating families and communities all over america and i asked all the young people who have lost their loved ones or families their life to begin

too many adults are being put away from productive lives that we must change. congress must do more to combat meth abuse. that is why i urge you to support my amendment. i yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside. further, that three amendments be called up en bloc. they are amendments number 700 867 and 895 and that reading of those amendments be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? will the gentleman please restate the amendments. mr. whitehouse: 700 867 and 895. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection the amendments are called up en bloc. the senator from rhode island. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the sphror pennsylvania. mr. casey: thank you mr. president. i ask unanimous consent pending amendments be set aside so i can

call up amendments number 632 and 633. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the amendments are called up en bloc. the clerk: mr. casey proposes amendments number 632 and 633 en bloc. mr. casey: i ask that the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: just a brief description of both. the first is a -- are deficit-neutral reserve fund. we have had a standard in place for a quarter century for -- pursuant to the americans with disabilities act that individuals who are -- have a disability in the workplace are given reasonable accommodations at the work site. we should have the same for pregnant workers. we have a case that was decided today by the supreme court young v. ups a mixed result but i think peggy young the

plaintiff, got a good result but there's still not a clear standard which we could place in the law just like we have for the context of disability in the workforce or an individual with a disability in the workforce. so we need a clear standard to increase employment opportunities and prevent employment discrimination against pregnant workers. secondly mr. president the amendment number 633 is a further development of existing policy as it relates to child care. we've had in the tax code tar long time tax credits for families who were paying for the cost of child care. that tax provision is a way to provide tax relief to offset child-care expenses for families. the problem though, is under current law as it's currently structured it doesn't provide the kind of relief that it should. in fact, the way it's designed now, many families are -- or i

should say very few families are able to benefit from it. i want to make it -- and i this it should be refundable. i.t. the bestit's the best way to provide a measure of relief that isn't there now. child care for most families, if it is not the most expensive part of their budget, it is often second or third. it's gone up across the country by some 70% in less than 30 years. we need to help families be able to pay for something as essential as child care so that's what that amendment is about. mr. president, i would yield the floor. mr. murphy: i ask unanimous consent that call up en bloc 842, 843 952 953 and to dispense with the reading of the amendments. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection the clerk will report the amendments en bloc. the amendments are called up en bloc.

mr. blumenthal: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you mr. president. i ask that the pending amendments be set aside add and that i be permitted to call up amendment number 825. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. blumenthal: i ask that -- the presiding officer: the clerk report the amendment. the clerk: mr. blumenthal proposes amendment numbered 8256789 -- 8256789825. mr. blumenthal: i ask that the reading of the amendment be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. blume this amendment is on the reserve fund in section 307 to provide for medical search and research into the issues affecting women in our military, most particularly women who become veterans, which is a inequitied aspect of health care -- neglected aspect of health care in our veterans affairs health care system. it focuses on the military

sexual trauma which continues to be a scourge in the military and its effects. but it also deals more generally with the need for research into post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury, which is unfortunately lagging in our veterans affairs system, as determined as our v.a. is to do more of it. and it would also build on existing programs for job training and vocational rehabilitation so that our veterans entering the job market and seeking to become productive in well-paying jobs will be able to fulfill that ambition. it essentially fills in some of the gaps left by the veterans access choice and accountability act, which this body passed not long ago and to meet the emergency as well as the sustained needs of our veterans that are unfill filled by our

present v.a. it is our obligation to do better for our nation's nation's and leave no veteran behind when it comes to jobs and health care. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. coons: mr. president, i'd like to speak briefly about four of the amendments that i've brought up this evening just to provide some background and detail. first i would like to speak about amendment 391. an amendment i've offered that would help small businesses to

provide health insurance to their employees. the affordable care act took -- made important strides toward making health care more affordable and accessible to millions of americans. and one of the ways the a.c.a. was intind to intended to expand coverage toss through business tax credits. these tax credits were a good first step, but over the past two years it's become clear we need to do more to expand and simplify them to help more small businesses. although many people i speak with have benefited greatly from the new kornlg afforded by the a.c.a., i have also spoken to many small business owners in delaware who have wanted to take advantage of the tax credit but couldn't because it was too complicated or they didn't qualify. we need to listen to these concerns and strengthen our health care system tow so it works for nch fen. that's why i'm offering my amendment to expand access which is based on legislation i've introduced with eight of my colleagues. mr. president, the small businesses owners i speak with who don't sees see their employees as lines in a balance

sheet, who see them as members of their family and a key part of their business, those small business owners want to do right by their workers and help enshould you shall that their health care needs are covered. we should do everything we can to help them meet those goals. so i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment to expand health care tax credits for small business owners. if i might very briefly speak to three remaining amendments i have made pending. number 394 is cosponsored by republican senator pat roberts of kansas, and is also cosponsored by senator schumer. it is the start-up innovation credit. it makes the research and development tax credit accessible to early-stage and start-up companies an important way that we can take this long-established tax credit that's of real benefit to significant, profitable companies that invest heavily in r&d and make it accessible to those fast-growing, littler-stage companies. second, i have the college savings bill. this is amendment 392 with senator rubio of florida. it is a deficit-neutral reserve fund that enkirnlings the use of college savings accounts.

study after study has shown that if young children have even as little as $500 in a savings account for college they are three times more likely to enroll in college. access is also reliant on affordable careaffordability. it lifts young people's sights and helps them focus on the importance of a college education. last amendment 343 provides for support for farm bill conservation programs which have been cut over the last five years by $2 billion. it is important that we preserve the long bipartisan-supported conservation programs in our farm bill that make huge difference for farms of all kinds across our nation. i urge my colleagues to support each of the amendments i've just discussed. with that, mr. president i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. a senator: i call up miements number 341 539 and 795 en bloc.

the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection the amendments are called up en bloc. a senator: speaking first to amendment 341 mr. president a principal challenge in our society today is how do we create better jobs with better benefits for working families? there are some industries that clearly have done that. those include the energy industry and by extension the low-cost energy being produced domestically is in turn creating new manufacturing jobs. to further this process, i will first point out that over 85% of the united states outer continental shelf is closed off to energy exploration and production. opening the american o.c.s., as it is called, will provide hundreds of thousands of jobs and increase our national security by increasing our energy security. my amendment encourages the security and these jobs by opening up america's outer

continental shelf to energy exploration and production. next mr. president i'll discuss amendment 539. i'm a doctor. i've been working in the public hospital system of louisiana for the last 25 years caring for the uninsured. i am so aware of the importance of safety net programs like medicaid. i will point out though that medicaid is a broken program so broken mr. president that it is bankrupting state governments and contributing to our runaway national debt. mr. cassidy: the question is how do we preserve this important program but at the same time also preserve the financial integrity of our state government of our federal government if you will ultimately, the pocketbook of the taxpayer. in this amendment we build upon proven models that will provide financial security for the patients that benefit from medicaid as well as for the states that provide those benefits for those medicaid patients.

mr. president, this is an important beginning to reform medicaid to preserve its benefits but again to protect the american taxpayer. lastly mr. president amendment 795. i'll return to what i said earlier. a chief challenge now is how do we create better jobs with better benefits for working families. those jobs oftentimes are on construction mining and manufacturing. the e.p.a. is promulgating new regulations which they estimate for ambient air quality standards which they estimate the cost of compliance will be $3.9 billion in the year 2025. this is estimated to decrease our g.d.p. by $140 billion. a $3.9 billion leading to $140 decrease in our economy. inevitably there are lost jobs associated with it, working families that are less well off.

the e.p.a. would prevent construction of manufacturing and energy-intensive enterprises. my amendment ensures the american energy and manufacturing renaissance is not interrupted by e.p.a.'s cost and regulation. it preserves those jobs for the american people. mr. president, i yield back. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: i ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside and on behalf of of senator bennet call up amendment 117 -- the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from -- mr. coons: i ask the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coons: mr. president i yield the floor. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: request proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: at this time i would ask i ask unanimous consent the pending amendments be set aside and called i call up senator thune's amendments 647 and 703. the presiding officer: without

objection. the amendments are called up en bloc. ms. murkowski: i ask unanimous consent now that the pending amendments be set aside and i call up my amendments numbered 838 and 770 en bloc. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection the amendments be called up en bloc. ms. murkowski: thank you mr. president. mr. president, i have two amendments that i want to speak to very briefly this evening that i hope wreak have an opportunity to consider tomorrow when we move to a very accelerated process. and one of them relates to lands and one relates to water our oceans. and how we move about on our oceans. the first amendment that i would like to speak to is an amendment that would establish a neutral reserve fund for land calls transfers and exchanges. and before i get to describing

that, i want to take just a couple minutes and speak to the overall budget itself in comparison and contrast to that submitted by the president. the budget before us i think is a stark contrast to the president's request which simply pretended that sequestration didn't exist never came remotely close to balancing, and would have led to the return of trillion-dollar deficits by 2025. the republican budget that we have in front of us as compared to the president's request well far from perfect believe me far from perfect does present i think a very significant choice between a direction on energy that i think takes us backwards and a proposal that we see laid out in this republican budget that gives us a clear choice when it comes to the future of our energy and natural resources

policy. the president's budget featured tens of billions of dollars of tax hikes and fees for our nation's oil gas and coal producers. it would have stripped away offshore revenue sharing which is a matter of fairness and i believe should be expanded to all coastal producing states. i know that's an issue that you and i agree on. the president's budget also ignored basic responsibilities such as cleaning up abandoned legacy wells that the federal government drilled and they drilled these years ago decades ago. we've seep major spending increases at most agencies and departments, and yet the one area where they're obligated to do the cleanup we're not seeing that addressed. the president's budget would have done nothing to promote resource development even in places where there is overwhelming public support for it like my state of alaska, which has seen restriction after

restriction placed upon it by this administration, and i've had an opportunity to speak many times on this floor about that. instead, the president sought new programs to subsidize the high cost of his regulatory plans and he's tried to find ways to avert the serious consequences such as the weakening of the reliability of our electric grid that will consequently follow in its wake. ultimately the president's budget would have led to lower energy and mineral production in our country. it would have lowered energy and mineral security. it would have led to fewer jobs lower revenues, higher prices and higher dependence on others. it would have lavished subsidies as it deepens our debt. it takes us in exactly the wrong direction when we talk about our energy future, our energy security. the president's budget would have done nothing to turn around the negative trends that we are

seeing in production on federal lands, either. his energy proposals are about as balanced as the budget that he offered. what we have seen in this country as we've seen increased oil production around the country, we have seen the benefits that it has yielded in terms of lower prices, we have seen the jobs that it has created, we have seen the opportunities for us, and yet this oil production is not happening on our federal lands. it's going gangbusters on state and private lands. natural gas production has outright declined for years on federal lands and the president's regulators are now hard at work to ensure that coal follows suit. and, mr. president we talk a lot about the conventional fuels, the fossil fuels, and i think it's important to

recognize that we're seeing similar patterns on federal lands when it comes to other energy sores -- sources. the president talks a lot about increasing generation our renewables. i agree it's something we need to to move towards. but what we're seeing is we're seeing increased renewable production but are we seeing it on our federal lands? it may come as a surprise to you and to others in this body, what we heard from representatives from the wind industry. my staff asked what percentage of wind projects are actually on federal lapped. and -- federal land. and surely given the commitment we have to renewable energy, you'd expect it to be a high percentage. the answer back was hardly any. some 98.6% of wind projects are apparently on state and private land.

98.6%. not even 2% are on federal land, mr. president. and that stat shows what we mean and why we're right when we say it's incredibly hard to develop any type of energy on federal land. secretary jewell said as much in front of our committee. she says it's just hard to do so on federal lands. so i'm glad to be here as the chairman of the energy and natural resources committee to affirm that we've got a better way forward. the energy revolution renewable and petroleum in this country, has been on state and private lands. that's a fact. so mr. president i have filed an amendment that would complement language that is already in the resolution by focusing on sales transfers or exchanges of land with state or local governments. the budget resolution already contains language for land

acquisition and conservation efforts, so nothing in the language that we have included in this amendment actually sales, transfers or exchanges a specifically identified piece of property. any legislation enabled by this spending-neutral reserve fund will have to go through the process and be voted either up or down in regular order. but the language does specify what cannot be considered, and that's any land that's located within a national park, within a national preserve or a national monument. those will continue to be protected. but this language would provide balance by enabling the types of exchanges, sales, or transfers with states or local governments that are often used to craft balanced comprehensive land policies like we did in the lands package on ndaa we passed last congress. so mr. president when we have an opportunity to consider this amendment, a vote for it is

really a vote in support as a priority of this congress, comprehensive approaches to lands policies to facilitate economic development empower states and improve our conservation systems. so i would encourage members to take a look at what i have offered here this evening and what i hope we will be able to take up for a vote tomorrow. the second matter, mr. president, very briefly and i know that the senator from colorado is here as well and others wish to speak tonight but i have an amendment that i will -- that i have offered just now that i hope, again, we will have a chance to vote on. to focus our priorities as a nation on what is happening in the north. we are an arctic nation. now, we are by virtue of my home state. but it's not just alaska. we are an arctic nation.

and as such, we have responsibilities, we have obligations. there is activity that is happening in the north country that is without question. what is also without question is that as an arctic nation, we are woefully behind in certain infrastructure related to our arctic. what do most people think of when they think of the arctic? ice. how do you move through the arctic ocean filled with ice? an icebreaker. and it's not just for commerce. it is for -- from a national security perspective but it's for a research perspective, it is for all those things that, again, would allow us to be a leader as an arctic nation. this is not easy for us, because icebreakers don't come cheap. but it should be a priority