vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not the yeas are 96, the nays are 3. the motion to table is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: what is the pending business before the senate? the presiding officer: pending business is h.r. 1191 which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 30, h.r. 1191, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986, and so forth and for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the corker amendment number 1140 to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the

corker amendment number 1140, to h.r. 1191, an act to aimed the internal revenue code of 1986. signed by 1 senators as follows: mr. mcconnell: i ask that the reading of the names be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president you send a cloture motion to the h.r. 1119 to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on h.r. 111 an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to ensure that emergency services volunteers are not taken into account as employees under the shared responsibility requirements contained in the patient protection and affordable care act signed by 17 senators as follows -- mr. mcconnell: i ask that the reading of the names be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask that the

mandatory quorum calls required by rule 22 be waibed. the presiding officer: is there 0 snks without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: is the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: the united states marshal service performs many important functions marshals protect federal judges, they transport federal prisoners, and they apprehend fujitives. the marshals operate the witness security program and they manage the asset forfeiture program. the work is vital and sometimes even dangerous. given the important nature of the work, it is all the more essential that its leaders carry out their mission with integrity and openness. unfortunately, the evidence suggests there are serious

questions about the leadership of the marshal service. the growing number of allegations brought to my office by whistle-blowers is very alarming. the growing number of applications brought to my office by whistle-blowers is numerous. it suggests there may be a pattern of mismanagement. in several letters to the justice department, i have asked about multiple personnel actions allegedly driven by favoritism rather than merit. the first example involves the director of the u.s. marshal service stas shvment a hilton. in september 2011, director hilton sent an e-mail from her personal e-mail address to kimberly biehl. at the time, biehl was the deputy assistant director of the asset forfeiture division. the e-mail included the reserve may have an applicant for a highly paid contractor position.

be apparently went to the unusual lengths to ensure that the applicant who knew director hilton in college was hired. e-mails indicate that ms. biehl inserted herself into the hiring process even though a contractor representative told her the applicant was unqualified. she directed subordinates to remain silent about the applicant's lack of qualifications. ms. biehl traveled to boston to interview the applicant in person. according to whistle-blowers she did not travel to interview other candidates for similar positions. after the contractor hired the ally can't director hilton placed ms. biehl in the position of acting assistant director of the asset forfeiture division, a position she now holds permanently.

in yet another example an assistant director reportedly directed sub-bort nationals to offer a beau cayive contract fogs a person with whom she allegedly had a personal relationship. now, gamesmanship of this sort undermines the confidence of dedicated marshal service employees in their leaders. i could go on and on with examples just like these that have been pouring into my office. another problem area is the alleged mismanagement of the assets forfeiture fund. the law requires that proceeds generated from asset sales be used to operate the asset forfeiture program compensate victims, and support law enforcement. yet it appears that some in leadership used the funds to feather their own nest.

money is spent on the best of the best in office furnishings and decorations instead of what's really needed to enhance law enforcement. in one example the fund was used to purchase a $22,000 conference table. in another example the fund was used to buy 57 square feet of top-of-the-line grange i think for the asset forfeiture academy in houston. the marshal service claims it cannot evening figure out how much the granite cost. whistle-blowers say the official who approved it told the supplier that -- quote unquote -- "cost was not a factor." and that official has dismissed concerns about wasteful spending of the asset forfeiture money on the grounds that it does not

come from appropriated funds. that is not responsible leadership. all money collected through the power of government needs to be spent carefully. every dollar wasted on unnecessary luxuries in the marshal service offices is a dollar that cannot be used to support real law enforcement priorities as the law requires. the proceeds of asset forfeitures should not be a slush fund for the personal whims of unaccountable bureaucrats. and how is the how has the justice department responded to these allegations? when i asked the department to explain the efforts to have director hilton's favored candidate hired by a contractor, the cpt told me that director hayden did not represent the applicant -- recommend the applicant for any position.

and the words "do not recommend for any position" is a quote. the marshal service says it consulted with its office of general counsel before the department sent its letters denying any improper hiring practices. this is disturbing because the office of general counsel has known about these allegations since december 2013. still, the justice department told me that no one did anything wrong. someone in the marshal service general counsel's office had an obligation to speak up before the justice department issued a false denial. they should have known better. about three weeks later the department retracted its earlier denial. in a second response, the department attached additional

evidence that in its words -- quote -- "appears to be inconsistent with representations" -- end of quote -- that it had previously made. that evidence was an e-mail change showing that then-deputy assistant director biehl had, in fact received the applicant's resume from director hilton's personal e-mail address. she then forwarded it to other senior leadership stating that the -- quote -- "director highly recommends" -- end quote -- the applicant. that evidence directly contradicts the denial that the department initially sent to the judiciary committee. now, you would think the department would insist on an independent inquiry after being misled like that. unfortunately, the department is still allowing the marshal

services to investigate itself. justice department headquarters is not doing its job when it fails to supervise components within d.o.j. there needs to be better supervision and a truly independent inquiry to get to the bottom of these allegations. finally, i want to recognize the courageous whistle-blowers who are bringing these shortcomings to congress' attention. as often happens many of these whistle-blowers have faced retaliation for just speaking up -- just telling the truth just helping congress do its constitutional responsibilities. but they've been retaliated against, and even today they fear more retaliation will come. multiple whistle-blowers allege that senior leaders submit foia

requests to seek information on employees who may have made protected disclosures. now, how sneaky. this is not the purpose of the freedom of information act. multiple whistle-blowers also allege that since receiving my letters, managers within the u.s. marshal service have been on the hunt for the identities of those who have made protected disclosures to my office. this behavior is absolutely unacceptable and contrary to the intent of whistle-blower protection legislation. maybe instead of spending time targeting the people who are trying to bring wrongdoing to light, the marshals should focus on providing full and accurate answers to my questions. the work of the marshal service is vital. the men and women doing that

work deserve not just our gratitude but our support as well. that support includes demanding responsible and accountable leadership from the marshal service. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: thank you mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: the senate is in a period of morning business. mr. casey: thank you mr. president. i rise to speak about one aspect of the budget debate that is before us, and it involves a major program that affects the lives of not just millions of americans but literally tens of

millions. we have debates and discussions in this body all the time about our commitment to children, our commitment to older citizens and a whole range of folks that we're concerned about. all of us at one time or another have made pronouncements about how important it is to support children especially vulnerable children. we also are very concerned as our parents or older relatives reach a certain age that they get the quality care in the twilight of their lives that we would expect. they're helped through a range of programs or services services, obviously starting with medicare medicare so we're concerned about our children, we're concerned about our older citizens. we're also concerned about the middle class. we hear a the love us speaking

about strategies or efforts to help boost the middle class and all of the challenges of the middle class. it's interesting though, that some issues affect all three of those broad groups of americans. one of the -- the issue that i'm here to talk about is medicaid. it affects obviously children, it affects individuals with disabilities it certainly affects older citizens across the country and indeed, affects the middle class. the senate republican budget would cut medicaid funding by more than $1.3 trillion and in my judgment -- this is an assertion of an opinion -- in my judgment would end the program as we know it because of the dimensions of those cuts. the budget would repeal the medicaid expansion threatening health insurance for some

14 million americans and convert much of the program's funding into block grants. let me talk about seniors for a moment. we have had lots of debates about what's the best policy going forward in the budget as it relates to a whole range of issues especially issues like medicaid and programs like medicaid, i should say. but i think at the end of the day, it's not your rhetoric or your speeches, it's your votes that tell where you stand and what you prioritize. we all have our own personal stories about those who have gone before us and we, of course always remember our own parents. but when we're talking about our seniors, we're talking about americans who fought our wars, worked in our factories taught our children, built the middle class, did so much for us, including giving us life and love that we want to make sure that we're doing everything

possible to provide them the quality care that they deserve when they reach that age of 65 or older. we know that medicaid provides other -- i should say medicaid provides older beneficiaries the dignity in their later years that they should have a right to expect as well as the flexibility to design where they receive care. in my home state of pennsylvania over 40% of medicaid spending on long-term care -- long-term services and supports goes towards home and community-based care. many assume that the medicare program "-- medicare" not "medicaid" -- many assume that will cover long-term care. in fact, it is medicaid that is the longest -- largest single

provider of long-term care. medicaid not medicare. medicaid provides nearly 40% of all long-term services provided in the united states. four out of ten people is a big number obviously. it's all of the folks -- lots of folks that we care about and interact with in the course of the day whether they're neighbors or family members or coworkers across the board. enrollment continues to grow, more americans are relying upon medicaid than ever before. medicaid is "the" major long-term care program for the middle class. so i'd ask that we all keep that in mind as we consider determinations that are made through the budget process. give you one example. a man living in philadelphia just his example and his mother's. after her husband's passing this individual's mom had health problems and her health deteriorated quickly. kidney problems forced her in

and out of the hospital. she was living on a fixed income with medical bills piling up. she sold her apartment and used that money to pay for a few more years of care. her son and his mother were using every penny of their -- every penny they could, i should say, to help her with her care and it wasn't enough. she needed constant assistance and her son as the only child in the family, couldn't do it himself while raising his own two children. eventually his mom was -- received medicaid benefits and moved into a nursing home in philadelphia. her son says he doesn't know what his family would have done without medicaid. paying for nursing home care would have quickly eaten his salary and he would have had to sell his family home. and, again, he was raising two children. medicaid -- medicaid -- allowed him to avoid that vicious cycle.

like millions of americans he went to school and worked hard to get a good job and make a decent living. but despite being employed as a professional without medicaid to help his mom, he would have had to impoverish his own family, his two children to care for his aging mom. this would have put his children's future at risk. medicaid offered this individual some help, and obviously his mother some help, in providing for his family and offering a way to have his mother get the care that she needed. this is not atypical. this is reality for so many families. one quick statistic and then i'll move to children and i'll wrap up. in pennsylvania seniors accounted for just 10% of medicaid enrollees but over 22% of spending in 2011. the national numbers aren't much different than that. the number of enrollees might be

around 10% or in that lower range but the spending, because the kind of care that they received, is of a higher -- of a higher cost. let me talk just for a couple of minutes about children. together medicaid and the children's health insurance program which we know as "chip" served more than 45 million children in federal fiscal years -- federal fiscal year 2013, representing one in three children in the united states. so medicaid plus "chip" is the health care for more than one in three children. we know "chip" is the health insurance program that impacts a lot of middle-income or at least lower-income families with children. in pennsylvania, for example just the medicaid program covered 34% of children zero to 18. so just a little more than a third of pennsylvania children rely upon medicaid, a critically

important program for those children. one of the -- one of the groups here in washington that tracks programs and policies for children is "first focus." they had a report in september of 2014 where they reported that in the calendar -- in calendar number 2012, 47% of rural children were covered by public insurance meaning medicaid or children's health insurance or maybe a third. 47% of rural children covered by public health insurance. only 38% of urban children. i know that sounds counterintuitive for some here, but rural children in america rely substantially upon medicaid and the "chip" program. so improving access to health insurance for low-income children not only leads to better health outcomes in the short run and in the long run but it also improves educational

outcomes and government savings in the long term. compared to their uninsured counterparts children covered by medicaid or "chip" are more likely -- more likely -- to compete -- or to complete, i should say, high school and college. these are -- these important programs help children literally succeed in life because they stay in school. whereas they would not at that rate if they were uninsured. some claim that medicaid is a highly unefficient program. that's one of the charges against it. whose costs are growing out of control. in fact, medicaid's cost per child are 27% lower per child than the per-child cost for private insurance and medicaid 's cost -- costs, i should say plural, per beneficiary have been growing more slowly per beneficiary cost than under private coverage. i would argue it's not only efficient but effective in delivering quality health care

to -- to our children. but we know there's more to be done and we know that there are improvements that medicaid could incorporate. we need to improve dental and behavioral health care for children and increase access to screenings and vaccinations to make sure our children are protected. let me just close with a couple of observations about children and pregnant women. we know that medicaid is an important addition for children and very important for pregnant women. with prenatal, delivery, and post -- postpartum care. nationwide they provide 45% of all birthday. 45%. we have a lot of people in both parties say how much they care about women and children. if what% of all births are in -- if 45% of all births are in medicare, we better protect medicaid.

parents who use medicaid and "chip" are more likely to receive vaccinations, have regular medical checkups and avoid preventable childhood illnesses. so mr. president just let me conclude with this thought. we know we have to find savings. we know we have to work towards a fiscally responsible budget. i don't believe and i don't think anyone here believes that the way to do that is to do it on the backs of children who are poor but receive good health care through medicaid do it by way of short circuiting or limiting substantially the opportunities that older citizens have to go to a nursing home. everyone in this building knows someone who's in a nursing home solely because of medicaid. not everyone but plenty of people that we know either people that we know and love or people that we know and encounter during the course of a year. so if you care about pregnant women, if you care about kids

if you care about older citizens and individuals with disabilities you will think long and hard before you vote to substantially cut as this budget does, medicaid. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. mr. corker: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: i ask unanimous consent that the foreign relations committee be discharged from further consideration of s. res. 97 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 97, supporting the goals of international women's day. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed with the measure. mr. corker: i further ask that the corker substitute, the resolution be agreed to, the resolution as amended be agreed to the corker substitute to the preamble be considered, the lee amendment to the preamble be agreed to, the corker

substitute, as amended be agreed to, the preamble, as amended, be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. corker: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to s. res. 155. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 155 establishing may 2 2015, as a day of recognition for ebola orphans and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed with the measure. mr. corker: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. corker: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to consideration s. res. 169. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 169

expressing condolences to the family of dr. warren wine stein and commemorating the life and work of dr. warren wine winestein. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. corker: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to the preamble be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. corker: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. wednesday may 6 following the prayer and pledge, morning business shall be deemed expired the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following the leader remarks the senate be in a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each and that the time be equally divided with the

majority controlling the first half and democrats controlling the second half. finally, that following morning business, the senate will -- the senate then resume consideration of h.r. 1191. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stands adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow.

the senate held a procedural vote on a motion to table or kill the veto message with the passing the senate did not have the two thirds vote necessary to override a presidential veto. also the chamber passed the 2016 house budget report 5148. it aims it aims to reduce spending by 5.3 trillion over the next ten years and we hear more about what is in that legislation from a capitol hill reporter. >> today in the senate debate on the budget conference report senators expected to debate this nonbinding measure setting some of the spending priorities as they work on the budget and appropriations ahead joining us with some of the details reporter with bloomberg covering all of the spending the the entire federal government, all the spending is is -- is and this report.

what are some of the key details the standout for you? how did lawmakers managed to get this budget to balance? >> the key practical take away from this that i see are basically it sets up a likely affordable care act repeal later probably the summer. also sets also sets up what may be a fiscal year impact in september or october about what to do with the sequester and defense spending. those are sort of the practical things. things. from the larger macro standpoint republicans are very proud that they passed the 1st house in a budget agreement which is the resolution, resolution, an agreement between the two chambers of commerce that does not go to the president very little or few things enforceable or concrete. the 1st time this has been done since 2009 command it will be the 1st time since 2,005 the republicans have done it. they aim they aim to get to

balance by the $32 billion surplus in 2024 basically using a combination of spending cuts and some assumptions about faster economic growth that would result from the policies. >> as you mentioned, they are proud of these, calling a historic. why does why does it matter that they are hitting his deadline for the 1st time since 2009? >> it is a statement a political unity on their part about fiscal policies. democrats don't the last time they were able to do this in 2,009 they used the budget process to push forward healthcare reform but they did not do a budget 2010. when the chamber split and control from 2011 through last year there was not even an attempt to reconcile any budgets. in fact, the senate only did one budget during a time. sort of you think of as a family getting together at

the kitchen table getting together on a napkin how they want to sort out finances you still need to do a lot to follow through but at least the napkin part of laying out how you want to fix your finances has been done. >> how are they dealing with the across-the-board spending cuts? >> they are keeping to the cuts that were agreed to. however, within this budget they project a $96 billion overseas contingency operation fund larger than what president obama has requested. their intent is to try and use that fund to ease funding the defense department this year. president obama has also said that he wants more money for defense them was called for under the 2011

command he also wants more money on nondefense spending which is something many republicans will balk at. so that question whether both sides get thrust up for only the defense side is probably going to be a major issue when it comes time for the fiscal year. >> you mentioned the federal health care law, how does that work back what is concerning here about the health care law? >> one of the more concrete things the budget resolution does is set out these things called reconciliation instructions. they can deal with spending revenue, debt ceiling. so within this resolution our instructions to two committees in the senate, the finance committee and health committee, health education, labor, pensions to come back with legislation that would reduce the deficit by $2 billion. they would have to come back by july 24.

those committees are expected an informal agreement to come back with legislation to repeal the affordable care act. because the instructions are included in the budget resolution that resulting bill that will come later in the year would be immune to filibuster, which means assuming passage in the house that will land on pres. president obama's desk and he will face the decision whether to veto it. assuming he does democrats will be faced with a decision to uphold the. from a political standpoint that part is something that is very attractive to republicans about this budget. a good reason why many of them are running. >> briefly, the next briefly, the next step in this process if the house decides to approve the report? >> basically it is a resolution between the two chambers the budget

resolution process, one process, but after this the house is already started i couple spending bills to flesh out the numbers within the resolution. and so that will go into the summer. we will see from their. again, the white house has already made noises about potentially vetoing some of these appropriations bills if they are basically made under the assumption that only the defense side which is about 60 percent of annual appropriations each year if only defense gets plus .-dot but not nondefense. >> we will keep following you on twitter. thank you for joining us. >> thank you. i appreciate it. >> the senate went on to pass the 2016 house and senate budget by 51 248 vote.

louisiana republican david vedder was the only senator who did not vote. before this afternoon's vote several senators came to the floor to discuss the 2016 measure which aims to reduce spending by $5.3 billion. here is a look starting with texas senator john cornyn. >> mr. pres., mr. president, i'm glad i had the chance to come to the floor and listen to the distinguished ranking member and distinguished senior senator on the budget community and senior senator from california talk about this budget. i feel like it is two ships passing in the night. when i. when i see this remarkable accomplishment under the leadership of chairman indian the budget community and the entire budget community this is a congressional budget that balances within ten years it does not raise taxes. every prioritizes our nation's defense.

it protects our most vulnerable citizens. improves economic growth will which is literally the rising tide that lifts all boats in a growing economy, something our economy has not been doing well and it stops the federal government out-of-control federal spending. so this is really a remarkable was meant. as a matter of fact this is the 1st joint tenure balanced-budget solution since 2001. i think what drives our friends across the aisle crazy is the fact that they have not passed the budget since 2009. now with the knew leadership here in the united states senate, the 114th congress we have done the basic work of governing which is to propose -- and this afternoon we we will pass a balanced budget. i no there are differences across the aisle.

there are clearly reasons why people choose to be a democratic senator and a republican senator. to me the difference is a pretty stark our friends across the aisle do not think the government should have to live within its means but that we should continue to borrow money we don't have by overspending and hand the bill to our kids and grandkids. i personally think that is a moral hazard. that is really unconscionable to keep spending money and then to send the bill to our kids and grandkids and say you pay it. we had a good time. our friends across the aisle think the federal government is not big enough because they want to continue to feed the beast with more of your hard-earned tax dollars so it can get bigger in truth further in your

individual freedoms and choices that should be left to you and your family. and then it sounds to me like the ranking member of the budget community the senator from vermont thinks the government ought to simply take more of the money you earned and to give it to somebody else he did not. and then i can only conclude that our friends across the aisle think in $18 trillion debt is not a problem. it is when interest rates start creeping back up as the eventually will. more and more of our tax dollars are going to be spent sending interest payments to the chinese and other holders of our sovereign debt to service the debt. it will crowd out finally national security spending

but the safety net spending that we all agree is necessary for people who cannot protect themselves. so there are real differences but this budget i am proud to say which we we will pass this afternoon thank to the heroic work of our budget community is i think a real accomplishment. what would be the real embarrassment is if we did not passed a budget. people listening at home may say, why are you so patting yourself on the back for passing a budget? we have a budget in our business, budget at home. why is it such a big deal for the knew congress to actually pass a budget? i guess it should not be. it should be something we do routinely because it is really the most basic demonstration of the ability to govern. i guess what makes a

remarkable is the fact that it has not happened a long time. so for that i am glad. we have seen under the knew leadership of the 114th congress some real progress. we have seen democrats and republicans working together to accomplish important things. that is something i think the american people appreciate and that all members of the senate, i think, have come to enjoy. the mood has changed, the ability of senators to participate in the process and actually come up with solutions has gotten so much better in just the 1st 100 days of the 114th congress that i think we are slowly starting to develop some momentum. we passed a bill that lets medicare beneficiaries see the doctors they need. that's a good thing. we have also passed an important piece of legislation that provides aid to victims of human trafficking.

and through the end of this week we will continue to work our way through another important piece of legislation, the iran nuclear agreement unanimously voted out of community a few weeks ago. this is important this is important not only to the region in the middle east but also to us in the world. this bill would guarantee that congress has an opportunity to review and potentially block any final deal with iran that president obama reaches. after we conclude that important consideration we are going to move on to consider something else that i think would help grow the economy and help actually end up bringing more revenue into the federal treasury and help us with deficits and debt to pass trade promotion authority and then take trent pacific partnership trade agreement. my state happens to export

more than any other state in the nation. our economy shows it because it creates about 6 million jobs command it is a good thing to have more markets to sell the things that are farmers grow, so livestock that our ranchers raise with the manufacturers good that americans make. it is a good thing. this bill would make sure the united states get the best deal in pending trade agreements. it would help make sure that taxes products and more generally american products and industries find new markets which will in turn raise wages for hard-working family. with all these other signs of progress i think that finding and passing a budget is one of the most fundamental responsibilities we have. families across the country's shifter on the

table each month. it has been lost in many of our democratic colleagues. i was reminded once again even when i can washington dc is not a cut in the amount of spending on the program for current program, it is a reduction in the rate of increase. that is what they call a cut a way that helps us control the deficit and take the 1st important step toward dealing with our long-term debt. when we vote on this budget today, the 1st time that both chambers have voted or agreed-upon spending bills since 2009. the 1st balanced ten year budget since 2001.

that is despite four consecutive years of trillion dollar deficits being the difference from what the government brings in and what it spends a different year. four years of consecutive clean dollar deficits has done great damage to our national debt. we have a downgrade by standard & poor's. it would be one thing of the pres. and our friends across the isle had a good record when it comes to the budgets and the proposals, but they don't. just look at what the president has proposed. pres. obama has missed statutory deadlines to propose a budget so often that it became more notable

when he actually did fulfill that responsibility and what is not. and then when the president's budget was voted on it was unanimously rejected by democrats and republicans that did not receive a single vote. the same is true and 2012. do you think of the pres. has proposed a responsible budget members of his own party would have at least voted for it? no democrat voted for the president's budget. last year in the house of representatives all but two members voted against the president's budget. we saw history repeat itself in march as well. one by one nearly every member of this body came to the floor and gave a thumbs

down to present obama's budget proposal. as a matter of fact he got one vote. it went down 98 to one. whether it is offering a completely irresponsible budget rejected by both parties or the failure to offer any budget at all our friends across the aisle are living in a glass house. when you when you live in a glass house -- when you live in a glass house you should not throw stones. the american people deserve better. we had an important election in november commanded changed the majority in the united states senate. that last election cycle we made promises that we intend to keep and we were elected on our promise to be

different and to govern responsibly. that promise includes passing a a budget that protects taxpayers and sets the nation on a path toward sound fiscal footing. well, fortunate for the american people we are keeping our campaign pledges command this budget does reflect there confidence in the knew leadership of the united states congress. this budget leaves our country with a surplus after ten years. and it does not raise taxes. by balancing the budget we could protects taxpayers and foster an economic environment that allows jobs and opportunity to blossom. protecting our taxpayers is not our only priority. i believe our number one priority in the federal

government's national security command i believe congress needs to make sure that that is a completely and do so in this budget. the budget does also provide the military with the necessary flexibility to react to changing threats and to make additional investments as necessary in a way that does not add to overspending. but only does this in a message to troops that they will have the support they need in order to do the job they volunteered to do but also to our families, our military families who serve as well in our all volunteer military system. but this prioritization of national security also sends a very important message to our nations adversaries. we know that weakness is a provocation to the bullies and tyrants around the world

when people like vladimir putin see the united states retreating and pulling back and not prioritizing our national security and not maintaining our role in the world as a preeminent power it is a provocation, and encouragement. we see that happening around the world as we see now a greater security threat environment that perhaps we have seen in many, many years. but but this budget sends a message to our adversaries around the world that america will not shrink and will not retreat from our leadership role. the budget and the consideration was passed just a few days ago and the house of representatives because it serve the american people by providing for national defense balancing the budget does not raise taxes. this afternoon the united

states that will keep its part of the bargain. we will follow through on a promise and make clear to the american people that we are committed to getting our fiscal house in order with this important 1st step. i yield the floor. >> mr. pres., a budget is far more than a series of numbers on a peace of paper. a budget really is a statement of values and priorities, priorities, a statement of the kind of nation we are in the kind of nation we want to be. for many of us these values and priorities are clear. we we believe that a budget should help us move toward an economy that is built from the middle out not the top-down and a government that works for all of our families not just the wealthiest few. the republican budget that

we are here debating today would move us in the opposite direction. instead of working with us to build on the bipartisan budget deal we struck last congress republicans have introduced a budget that would lock in sequestration hollow out defense and nondefense investments and use gimmicks and games to pay -- pave over the problems. instead of putting jobs and wages and economic security 1st by prioritizing policies by paid sick leave the republican budget would cut taxes for the rich and lee working families behind. instead of building on the work we have done to make healthcare more affordable and accessible the republican budget would take us back to the bout all days when insurance companies

called call all the shots and fewer americans had access to the they need. i want to take a few minutes today to talk about each of those issues and to urge my republican friends to take a different approach, put politics aside, come back to the table command work with us on the responsible budget that both the middle class 1st and will actually work for families and communities that we represent. the 1st issue i want want to talk about is the automatic cuts from sequestration and the failure of this budget to address the issue democrats and republicans agree need to be solved. i am proud that coming out of the terrible government shutdown of the end of 2013 we were finally able to break through the gridlock and dysfunction, reach a bipartisan budget deal that prevented another government shutdown restart investment in education, research defense education, research, defense jobs, and really lay down a foundation for continued bipartisan work.

that deal that deal was not the budget i would've written on my own with a one republicans would have written a male but it did in the lurching from crisis to crisis that had workers and 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 we can work together to build on it because we know there is bipartisan support to replace sequestration and a balanced and fair way. not only do we prove that with our bipartisan budget deal but democrats and republicans across the country have continued to come out against the senseless cuts to the fence and nondefense investments. mr. president, republicans who went the opposite way were able to cut trillions of dollars on programs that support families and fight poverty, nearly a trillion dollars cut from medicare

and medicaid and more than 5 trillion overall but they refused to dedicate a single penny of that rollback the automatic cuts to education research or defense investment. to put that in perspective we were able to roll back sequestration for two years in a bipartisan budget act with $85 billion in savings but the republican budget won't fix the problem even for this coming year with more than 50 times that amount of savings. instead instead of using a tiny fraction of the enormous cuts this budget has to pay for investments that both republicans and democrats agree must be made this budget uses a gimmick by increasing funding to appear to patch over the problem on the defense side without raising the on defense funding and doing nothing at all for nondefense investment like education and research and jobs our infrastructure.

we know the automatic cuts are a terrible policy and the pres. president has said he would veto spending bills that sequester levels. i also no there are republicans who have seen the impacts of sequestration the republicans who look at this budget and wonder why it could not use some of the trillions of dollars in cuts to reinvest in american innovation or in our defense investment. i am hopeful instead of continuing to kick the can down the road or relying on gimmicks the don't actually solve the problem republicans will come back to the table and work with us to build on a bipartisan budget deal and a balanced and responsible way to allow the appropriations committee that actually do there work and not wait for another crisis before they push the tea party aside and work with us to get this done. instead of rehashing old debates and marching a store

in other completely avoidable crisis we should be working together to put in place policies that boost the economy and help her working families. the worker should have to sacrifice a day's pay for their job altogether just to take care of themselves or their sick child. today in this country 43 million americans do not have access to paid sick leave. making sure workers have this basic worker protection will give more families much-needed economic stability and it is pro-business. it boosts productivity and reduces turnover. businesses that want to have the worker stay healthy should have a level playing field so that they are not at a disadvantage when they do the right thing strong bipartisan majority of senators affirm their support for allowing workers to earn paid sick days.

i was hopeful we can build on the momentum and keep working together to increase economic stability. i was very disappointed the conference report does not reflect that provision. this conference report allows for tax credit for employers that would not guarantee access to paid leave. that is a step in the wrong direction, but it does not have to be the last one. i urge our colleagues to work with me to pass the healthy families act the legislation that would move this to be beyond budget amendments and make paid sick days a reality. allowing workers to earn paid sick days is one way we can ensure our workplaces are working for our families

i also want to talk about one more way this budget would be devastating for families across the country. the affordable care act is a critical step forward in our effort to build a healthcare system that puts patients 1st and allows every family to get the affordable high-quality healthcare they need. the work did not end. families across the country are expecting us to keep working to build on his progress and continue making healthcare more affordable and more accessible and higher-quality. that is what democrats are focused on. unfortunately, this republican budget would do the exact opposite rollback all of the progress we have made, take us back to the bad old days when insurance companies call the shots when being a woman was a pre-existing condition when far fewer families can afford to get the health care they need in this

republican approach could even mean an average tax hike of $3200 per year on working families who would have to pay more for their care. families are tired of republicans playing games with their healthcare. i would hope i would hope my republican colleagues would listen to the millions of people across the country to have more affordable quality healthcare in the vast majority of constituents who want us to work together to solve problems, not rehash old fights and finally dropped the political games and work with us to move our healthcare system forward, forward, not backward for the communities we serve. republicans control congress is their job to pass a budget. our our constituents sent us here to work together, not argue with each other. people across the country are expecting us to break through and deliver results.

our is my colleague to oppose this budget that would be devastating for middle-class families and i really hope that republicans decide to come back to the table and work with us on policy to grow the economy from the middle out, not the top-down and move us toward a government that works for all families, not just the wealthiest few. >> the senator from arizona. >> i have to thank the senator and members of the budget. an agreement that we are currently considering. in the budget conference agreement. policy provisions that begin

to move this country and the right fiscal directions including balancing the budget within ten years, without the need to raise taxes on the hard-working american taxpayer something that the administration's budget fails to do. in. in addition, the budget agreement provides the pathway to repeal the failed policies of obama care. i am pleased the resolution does provide some relief from sequestration's devastating cuts for national defense. the good news is that there is some relief. providing additional resources for defense through the overseas contingency operation account is a good one but it is temporary and the band-aid. again, i. again, i want to thank the senator for the great job is done. the fact is this body and this congress is guilty guilty of not repealing sequestration.

if we go before the senate armed services committee former secretary of state henry kissinger testified as we look around the world we encounter of people in conflict. the united states has not faced a more diverse and complex array of crises since the end of the 2nd world war. what are we doing? /defense year after year after year to think of sequestration which was never intended to happen. that is a devastating indictment. the chief of staff of the air force data we are now the smallest air force we ever been. when we deployed to operation desert storm in 1990 the air force had 188

188 fighter squadrons. today we have 54 and are headed to 49. in 1992 were 511,000 active-duty alone. today we have 200,000 fewer. we have process of airplanes that qualify for antique license plates. the army's active component in strength has been reduced by 80,000. the reserve component by 18,000. 18,000. 13,000 less active component brigade combat teams, eliminated three active aviation brigades. and he went on to say the number one thing that keeps me up at night command we are asked to respond to an unknown contingency i will send soldiers to that contingency not properly trained and ready the chief of naval operations held due to sequestration in 2013 our

contingency response force for the united states one 3rd of what should be and what it needs to be. we are investing in modernization at a historically low level. we know that we know that we must maintain at least 10 percent or 12 percent of our resources on modernization to feel the ready force. i asked every single one of our service chiefs and area commanders the same question if we don't repeal sequestration will it put the lives of our men and women who are serving in the military in greater danger? the answer by every single one of these uniformed

leaders, not -- they said yes. we will put the lives of the men and women who are serving in the military in greater danger. i say to myself and my colleagues in the united states senate this is not acceptable. this is not acceptable for us to ask the young men and women who are serving our military in uniform to have their lives put in greater danger because we down and failed to address the issue of increasing and unsustainable deficits. we're making them pay the price. 13 percent of the budget is allocated to defense. defense is taking 50 percent of the cuts. the ryan murray agreement is something that was welcomed. we need another ryan murray

every we knew the men and women who are serving as members of congress to understand that we have no greater responsibility than the defense of this nation. i can assure my colleagues that working with my friend senator reid the rhode island we will be working we will reduce the waste and mismanagement, address acquisition, reform acquisition. we will the cutting the size of these huge staff that have grown and grown and grown and be making significant reforms in the way that the military does business. these reforms will not have the impact necessary in the short term command that is that we are putting the lives of american soldiers

sailors, marines, and airmen in greater danger. i came to the floor to thank my colleague from wyoming for the great job he has done. i will tell my colleagues that we must work together in a bipartisan fashion to fix the damage that sequestration is doing. let me add one other issue. some of us have forgotten that in the days after the vietnam war the military was in terrible disarray. ronald reagan came on a slogan peace. we we both both the military, put it back to being the greatest military and effective force in the world and won the cold war. right now if you look at the map of the world 2011 and

2011 we acted sequestration you will find henry kissinger and george schultz and madeleine albright and brent scowcroft and every person who is respected our national security this country we are in grave danger whether it be from isis, and ran aggressive behavior by the chinese. no matter what it is there are severe crises no matter where it is in the world we are in the midst of serious challenges to our national security the last place we should continue to cut is on our defense and capability to defend this nation. i yield the floor. >> i i want to thank the senator for his leadership and echo his words that we need a bipartisan solution. hopefully we can address it

not only supporting our men and women when they are actively in harms way but when they come home. that is why we need a bipartisan balanced solution like we had before. thank you for your leadership. the reality is that this budget, any budget is about our values and our priorities. that's what it's about. i have to say i am deeply concerned about the values portrayed in this budget. i greatly respect the chairman and ranking member and thank them for their service. when you look at this budget in total this goes opposite frankly to what the majority of members talk about everyday. this particular budget keeps the system rigged in favor of the wealthy and well-connected against the interest of hard-working

middle-class americans. picture this in this budget if you are a family with assets of 10 million or more, you hit the jackpot. you get at least a $3 million bonus tax cut in this bill. how is a pay for? well, it is paid for by everyone else. 16 million hard-working americans will see a tax increase of at least $900 based on these policies. and we will see critical investments and services cut nothing will be done to address jobs overseas not one loophole proposed to be

closed sending jobs overseas everyone to create an economy and balance the budget, let's bring those jobs home. nothing in this budget about that. you have wealth of over $2 million, it's your lucky day. 3 million in your pocket or more. it is christmas in this budget for very wealthy multimillionaires. if you are everyone else you are in trouble. no focus on creating jobs and god help you if your family has a mom or dad or grandma grandma with alzheimer's disease in a nursing home because this budget guts missing home care for millions of americans. a lot of folks who desperately need that care very one out of five medicare dollars today goes to treat alzheimer's.

this is an area that i have been deeply involved in. important work that needs to be done. if you have someone that needs long-term care you are out of luck in this budget. this morning i talked to a group of women in town with breast cancer research. this is a month to focus. if you care about breast cancer research you are out of luck. if you want to make sure that we are investing in treatments we are so close. americans research and innovation and the best minds in the world are working on opportunities to solve alzheimer's and parkinson's disease and cancers and all kinds of other areas of concern. but the budget is cut for nih the national institute of health.

what kind of priorities does this reflect? and on top of that, for 16.4 million people who now affordable insurance it is gone. what is interesting about the budget, it is creative. all the revenue from all the fees to pay for healthcare stays to help balance the budget. it is just the healthcare the goes away. so for the breast cancer patients that i talked to this morning who are now so grateful that if they need to go out and get knew insurance they won't be called someone with a pre-existing condition, that goes away in this budget. if if you have a child was 22 or 23 just graduated and they are on your insurance right now while they are trying to get themselves together and get that 1st

job that goes away. so this budget attacks healthcare which is not a drill. we don't control when and how we get sick or if our children get sick or if our parents or grandparents need a nursing home or what may happen in terms of medical issues and our families. but healthcare is directly attacked. the affordable care act on. getting inpatient care in nursing homes for alzheimer's patients and others, research gone. so we are hearing from our republican friends that they are making government work. i tell you what, it is not working for middle-class families. it families. it is working if you make over 10 million a year but it is not working if you pulled in together two or three jobs and are just trying to make it.

we believe that this ought to be a middle-class budget. everyone deserves a a fair shot to get ahead and have a chance to have a better future. and so for us that means this budget should have a major focus on creating millions of jobs by rebuilding our roads rebuilding our bridges, our infrastructure. by the way the funding for that, the authorization for that 1st -- runs out at the end of may. nothing to address that. we will see all kinds of jobs that are eliminated. we stand up for social security and medicare. this budget has this budget has $430 billion in cuts in medicare and does not say

where they come from. it is proposing a structure that would eliminate medicare as we know it can't turn it into some kind of voucher system or some other kind of system that is not guaranteed care under medicare. we believe in protecting medicare and social security we believe that everyone ought to have a fair chance to work hard and make it in go to college. this does nothing but increased cost to students going to college, and we believe they ought to go down so that when you leave college you don't end up with enough debt to where you could have bought a house. then you can't buy a house because people have so much that they cannot qualify. we want to make sure everyone has a chance to go to college and that it is affordable and that we are protecting social security and medicare and creating jobs rebuilding roads and highways and the opportunity

to invest in america and finally we want to bring jobs home. it is insane that we still have a tax code that rewards those sometimes only on paper believe this country. they still breathe the air, drink the water, drive on the roads they just don't have to pay their fair share of taxes. that that is not fair to every small business in michigan working hard every day and every taxpayer across this country, every business we have. there is nothing in this budget that is done to address that. i conclude by saying that we should resoundingly object and vote no on the priorities and their values set out in this budget. they do not reflect what is good to create a middle-class an opportunity in this country.

if you are one of the privileged few break out the champagne. if you are the majority of americans hold on to your seat can't put on your seatbelts because if this is in fact put in place it will be a rough ride for america. our our side we will do everything humanly possible to make sure that does not happen. i yield the floor. >> the senator from new york >> migrate colleague from michigan four outstanding words and leadership, leadership, a senior member of the budget committee and knows just what is wrong with this budget and knows how to reach the american people in terms of revealing just that, showing just that i think her. i want to thank my dear friend senator sanders, fellow graduate of james madison high school in brooklyn for his great work. look, in a certain sense

this republican budget is a gift to us and to the american people because it shows the real priorities. they are so far away from what average americans want that this budget will resound from one end of the country to the other between now and november of 2016. the budget that the house and senate republicans have put together helps the wealthy and powerful our country who do not need help. this idea cut taxes on the wealthy and that is how to make america a better place how many americans actually believe that? a lot of our colleagues do. but that is not what most americans think. the budget should reflect the economic reality right now. middle-class incomes of declining.

it is harder to stay in the middle class. it is harder to reach the middle class. and a budget should help those folks in the middle class stay there. we're trying to get to the middle class where so they can get there. again, this budget seems to focus all its attention and all its duties of the very wealthy. the economy is getting stronger but mainly at the very high end. we need to cut the taxes. they are hurting. at the same time, we need to raise taxes on 16 million americans 16 million americans were working and making 20, 30 40 60,000 a year. how many americans would say we should cut taxes on the 4,000 wealthiest people in average of $3 million cost of $260 billion over ten

years and raise taxes on people making 20 30 40,000 per year. is it 1 percent of american thinks that way? maybe. but it seems our colleagues on the other side of the aisle follow that pied piper, that 1 percent in putting together the budget. it makes no sense. the republican budget is a document of willful ignorance. it was constructed in an ideological house of mirrors no one sees reality, no one sees any reality. they don't see middle-class people struggling making it harder to pay for college. what the heck is going on hear? there trying to pass a budget that says we should make it harder to pay for college. the veterans should lose food stamps veterans

people who service. people, i'm sure the vast majority are looking for jobs and income. that is who veterans are. when they are down on their luck had injuries are rough adjusting and you cut the food stamps what kind of budget is this? it is a budget in an ideological house of mirrors student loan payments. 30-year-olds, 40-year-olds huge burdens of death debt and they can't even buy a home. maybe they put off having kids. worse, this. worse, this budget our republican friends are saying eliminate programs, cut programs that reduce some of that debt burden. what world are you folks living in? it sure is in the world of reality.

it is an ideological house of mirrors. a document, budget document of willful ignorance. you can go on and on and on. how many families have elderly parents and nursing homes levels of risk? we know that tragedy. and then these young families are going to have the burden of taking their dear parents and loved ones back in their homes. well we have got to cut somewhere. how about not giving the 4000 richest families $260 billion over ten years dollars over ten years and put some of the money and the cancer research, helping veterans feed themselves

making it easier to pay for college, but some of the money into making sure we continue cancer research. republicans are going to have to figure out a way to convince the american people that they are doing something, anything to help the middle class. so far they are striking out we no there is only one did a good news. our colleagues when forced to put real numbers to these budget numbers in the appropriations process won't be able to. and i hope -- this will be up to our ranking member. i hope they take this budget and crafted into the appropriations bill and put it out there. how many of our colleagues will vote to make it harder to pay for college, make it harder for veterans to feed themselves vote to raise

the taxes on people making 30, $40,000. it's a fun day for republican colleagues. they colleagues. they beat their ideological breast, show the heart rate that they really mean it and then maybe we can go back to governing the country. >> the senate went on to pass the 2016 how -- house-senate budget. two republicans voted against the resolution. ..

>> a hearing on had status of wild fire management and funding for western states. now a part of an event on the future of america's black america hosted by the manhattan institute for policy research. it marks the anniversary of a