Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act

Mr. President, I have enjoyed working with Senator Murray. She is a strong leader. She makes clear decisions and sticks by them and executes them. I respect that. She has stayed within the rules as the chair of the committee. We disagreed on a number of things. Our vision for the financial future of America is quite different.

I understand how difficult it is to produce a budget. That is not an easy thing to accomplish. When there is a divergent caucus, it is particularly difficult.

Politico said the budget was written by the left of the Democratic caucus to the left of President Obama. I think that is probably correct. It is a very big spending, big tax budget. It is the wrong thing for America. It is the wrong thing for economic stability. It is the wrong kind of plan if made into law to help us grow our economy, create jobs, create wealth, get people overtime and bonuses and pay raises, the kind of thing we have when the economy is growing.

This budget is the wrong medicine. I have to say I strongly believe it takes us in the wrong direction. What does it do at the bottom? It raises taxes. It raises taxes, according to the chairman, by $1 trillion--$985 billion. That is almost $1 trillion. We think it raises it $1.5 trillion. There is a reserve fund to make it easy to raise more taxes. I asked the chair to close that so it could not be used to raise taxes easily, but she declined, which continued to cause me to believe that is an additional part. Regardless, $1 trillion in new taxes is a huge tax increase.

In January of this year, the President got a $600 billion tax increase on the rich. Plus there is $1 trillion in tax increase in the President's health care bill. So we are already at $1.6 trillion in new taxes, and there is a proposal in this budget for at least another $1 trillion. That is not healthy for the economy.

We all know when we extract more wealth out of the economy, it does have effects. One of them is it weakens the economy and strengthens the central government. The central government is not managing the people's money well. We have no interest, it appears from this budget, in listening to the American people and running their government better, leaner, more productive, get more bang for the buck. What do we do? We ask for more money. We haven't done anything wrong; send us more money.

I have to urge my colleagues to honestly examine what the budget does. In addition to raising taxes, we would think that would help us. They say they have a balanced approach. We started counting how many times my Democratic colleagues used the word ``balance.'' I think it suggests a guilty conscience myself because the budget in no way comes close to balancing a

budget. It doesn't pretend to. It explicitly rejects it. There is not an arbitrary date. There is not a date proposed to balance the budget. In fact, because it makes no changes in the drivers of our debt, the big entitlement programs, the big welfare programs, the interest on the debt, none of those are constrained by this budget. We know the next 10 years that are outside the budget window will be even worse. They will be on an unsustainable course, accelerating even off the course we are on today, which is unsustainable. So I am very disappointed.

Everybody who has been involved or who has participated--whether it is the Gang of 6 or the committee of 12, as our chairman did, the super committee--knows that nearly 60 percent of the money the government is now spending, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on the debt, food stamps, those programs are out of control. They are entitlements, which means we set up legal standards that if those standards are met, anyone can walk into a government office and demand the money. They have to give it to them. If they don't, they can sue the government. I am 68 years old, I want my Social Security check. We can't say we don't have any money.

So this is the kind of thing that needs to be fixed now. It needs to be discussed now. Every expert who is an independent adviser to the government has said: You guys need to get together and fix this.

So what the budget before us today says is, no, we are not going to fix any of that. We have no plans to construct any of that. And any of our Republican colleagues who suggest that these programs have to be changed, we say they don't like old people. We say they don't like poor people. We say they don't want people to have food.

That is what we say--attack, attack, attack, when everybody knows change must occur. We know that. It is not in this budget--nothing in the budget. So they don't change the programs within the budget. I suggest that is not responsible. I suggest that is not a budget worthy of a party that says they want to lead America. The great Democratic Party is absolutely refusing to confront the great financial issues of our time. No, we won't talk about it, and if our Republican colleagues do, we are going to attack Paul Ryan because he has a creative, insightful way to preserve Medicare and make it more healthy in the future and put it on a sound path. We are going to say he is trying to destroy Medicare.

Paul Ryan has a plan to save Medicare, bring it into the 21st century, and make things better. It ought to be discussed openly and fairly, not demonized. That is the level of debate we are in here.

In private when we talk to our colleagues, they say: Yes, we need to make changes. We really do.

Well, when? And when the paper is printed, when the budget is printed, it is not there. It is not there. So there is no reform of the fundamental drivers of our debt.

We also know that last year we spent $750 billion on 83 government welfare programs, means-tested programs; that is, if a person's income is below a certain level, the government deems that person worthy of some subsidy of some kind. Many of these 83 programs are duplicative. There is not a coherent focus on them that endeavors to help the people, really, other than giving them money, giving them aid. There is not a sufficient focus in all of these programs in actually helping that struggling mother with children who is out of work, who lost her job, who can no longer get overtime or bonus pay, and young people who are struggling to get up on the ladder of work and prosperity. This is not helping them. And these programs are just temporary. We have billions going out for unemployment insurance, food stamps, temporary assistance to needy families, earned-income tax credit, all of these programs.

It is time for us to begin a massive overhaul, review all of these programs, and several things can happen. One thing that can happen is we can make them better, and we can actually create programs that allow each person in their time of need to get temporary assistance, to be able to refocus their life, to move into the workforce, help them find the training they need to get into areas that need jobs right now, and help them move forward. But do my colleagues know what we have in our Senate and among a lot of the Members of the House? We have a goal to see how many more workers we can bring in without effectively helping American workers who are unemployed.

We have an immigration policy that says we have jobs but we don't have enough workers. That is what the businesses are telling us. We don't have enough workers. They all ought to add--when they send us that message, they ought to say: And by the way, you need to give more welfare and more aid to people who don't have jobs. Now, what is the disconnect there?

We need to be protecting American citizens who are here, out of work, and hurting today--minorities, Blacks and Whites and all colors and races that are hurting today with high unemployment, but we seem to be more focused on how we can ram through this Senate a bill that would legalize millions and create an even more robust guest worker program. There are not enough jobs now. Give me a break.

So we are talking about $750 billion going out now for these 83 programs, projected to go up 80 percent in the next decade--the total of those programs--go up 80 percent in the next decade. We have calculated those numbers, and if it went up 60 percent, it would save $1 trillion. I think we can make those programs more effective, more helpful, and organized in a way that really advances the needs of poor people and save $1 trillion. That ought to be our goal. We will let it grow as much as we have to allow it grow to take care of people in need. We are going to make sure people have their needs met in America who are struggling out there, but at the same time, it can be done better, and every American knows it. They will talk to us when we ask them about it. They are uneasy about the easy money and the feeling that this system isn't working when it comes to government assistance, and I think they are right. I would ask my colleagues if they think they are right. I really think so. So what does that mean? That means we should be having hearings and doing work to fix it, which we are not doing.

The challenge of our time is the unsustainable debt course this country is on. The challenge of our time is for us to demonstrate that we made the changes necessary to place this economy on a sound footing.

I believe the great minds of our time are not as smart as they think they are. In 2001 Chairman Greenspan of the Fed came before the Budget Committee and talked about what we were going to do when the entire debt of the United States was paid down, and he worried we wouldn't know what to do with the money. Of course, we were in a recession within a few months, and now we see demographically that we are on an unsustainable debt course. The new Fed Chairman, Mr. Bernanke, as the Wall Street Journal documented, at the time was promoting Mr. Greenspan to spend more money and keep losing money before the housing crisis-- just exactly the wrong advice. He didn't see it coming. So we are not so smart around here.

I am worried about the future. What do I think responsible government policymakers should do? They should provide a good, solid framework for the vibrant, free market economy in this country to flourish. We can't be the kind of off and on again faucet for money and taxes and spending and not spending and bouncing around here trying to pass laws every few months to meet what is perceived as the financial goal of somebody on Wall Street at that moment. We are not able to do that.

What we should do is lay out a strong, clear policy, adhere to it, and let the businesspeople risk their money with some ability to ascertain what those risks are, not expecting the government to come in and alter the situation and the rules of the game a few months down the road. That is what we should do--create a sound framework. We are not doing that. I am concerned about it.

Finally, this budget increases spending. It increases spending very dramatically at a time when we don't need to be increasing spending at this rate. We are increasing spending above the rate we are currently set to operate by--the Budget Control Act line--

which allows for increasing spending every year. But this budget spends more than that, and it raises $1 trillion in taxes, at least, and it expends all of those new taxes, eats that up with new spending. If it called for us to stay on the current baseline of spending, growth that is going up, and we raised $1 trillion in taxes, we would have $1 trillion in reduced deficit over the next 10 years. But it spends more money, and it eats up the new taxes with new spending. It really does.

This is a failed plan that has been produced by the majority party in the Senate. When people heard this--this is what is being said to the American people, and we all know it: The Democratic leadership is saying, we have a budget that is balanced. What does that mean? It means we are going to pay down the debt, but it is not all going to be cutting spending. We are going to pay down the debt by raising taxes and cutting spending--raise taxes $1 trillion, cut spending $1 trillion, so we have a $2 trillion reduction in the deficit. Doesn't that sound good? That is the kind of thing the American people would like to hear. It is not enough. We could do more, and we don't have to do a lot more, and we will have a balanced budget.

But it doesn't do that, I say to my colleagues. It doesn't. It raises taxes $1 trillion, but it raises spending $1 trillion. It doesn't cut spending by $1 trillion, it raises spending. Therefore, we have no deficit reduction at all, but we have a new $1 trillion tax.

The government is saying to the American people: We need more money. We don't have any way to cut any spending, and if anybody proposes there are abuses in the food stamp program or there are abuses in other programs out there or that we are wasting money on energy loans by the billions--Solyndra and A123s and those kinds of companies--they are saying all of that, but we can't save any money. There is no money to be saved. You just send us more money, and then we will pass it around, and this will stimulate the economy.

I will conclude. I see we have some colleagues who are here. I would just say this: The debt we have today I have become absolutely convinced is too high. The gross debt of the United States is 104 percent of our economy. It is above our GDP, which is almost $17 trillion--that debt is almost $17 trillion now.

What we have seen from the Rogoff and Reinhart study and from recent reports by the International Monetary Fund and a report by the European Central Bank and a report by the Bank for International Settlements-- they all say that when debt is as high as it is today in the United States, that begins to pull down growth.

So my colleagues claim they have a budget that will help create jobs. I would say with all respect that we have a disagreement. Democrats believe they can tax more and spend more and borrow more and that will somehow create growth and prosperity. I believe we have had 4 years of that experiment, which I fundamentally doubted and opposed from the beginning, and it hasn't worked. We can't take a bucket of water from one end of the pool and pour it in the other and gain from it, especially when the bucket is going to leak--a good bit of it--in the process.

So what I would say is that the debt now is so high--according to all of those reports, the debt of the United States is in the zone that they craft, that they have analyzed--when debt gets into that zone, we lose growth. All of those reports--Rogoff and Reinhart, IMF, European Central Bank, the Bank of International Settlements--say we are in that zone.

So if we want to have growth, we are going to have to make our government leaner. We are going to have to begin to get our budget under control and balanced. And if we balance it by allowing growth to occur at 3.4 percent, without having to cut over 10 years--but if we allow our growth to increase at 3.4 percent instead of 5.4 percent, the budget balances. So we don't have to slash and burn, but we do have to get off the course we are on. It isn't easy, but that is what we are paid to do--to be responsible.

So if we get off that course and begin to see our debt-to-GDP go down, which a balanced budget--even over a 10-year, responsible period--would do, then we will be able to actually honestly say we have strengthened America, we have put us on a sound path, and we have allowed the economy to grow again.

There is no doubt in my mind, I say to my colleagues--and I doubt in theirs--that if the world were to see that the United States was on a path to a balanced budget, wow, they would say: Really? This debt spiral the United States and all of these big, fat Western nations have been on--maybe others can do this too. Maybe this is the place to invest our money.

I believe it would help growth, help investment, help put the country on a sound path. I am disappointed that this budget doesn't do it.

I respect my colleagues. We had a great time in the committee. We have had a good time on the floor. Senator Murray is a good chair. But I guess the left of the Democratic caucus has produced a budget that won't work. It does not meet the challenge of our time. It is deeply disappointing. I guess there is still some chance something might happen in conference. But from the looks of this budget, the chances are not very great, I have to say.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair for this opportunity and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to yield up to 10 minutes to Senator Cruz of Texas.

As we consider the budget which is before us today, I would call my colleagues' attention to the fact that the Democratic budget, the Murray budget, was voted down in the House of Representatives 2 days ago by 107 votes. One-fifth of the Democrats, one out of five, 20 percent, voted against this budget. No Republicans voted for it.

This may be because, as Politico said, ``to win over her caucus, Murray begins from the left of Obama himself.'' With regard to independent evaluations of the budget, the United States USA Today editorial on March 15 said this:

The plan produced by the Senate Budget Committee Chair,

Patty Murray, D-Wash, is a disappointing document. It is a

namby-pamby plan that underwhelms at every turn.

The Murray budget neither balances the budget nor reigns in

entitlements.

It would help the Nation's Democrats if they were to embrace the goal of a Ryan budget.

This is the view of USA Today, the largest print in the country.

The Washington Post said on March 15: ``This document, gives voters no reason to believe that Democrats have a viable plan for--or even a responsible public assessment of--the country's long-term fiscal predicament.''

The Wall Street Journal, Investment Business Daily, The Hill, all of these have comments in somewhat the same vein.

What is our problem? Our problem is spending.

People say: Sessions, this is just what Republicans say, and we say it is not taxing the rich enough.

There is a fundamental issue about spending. I dealt with and asked questions of Mr. Elmendorf, our CBO Director, on this very subject. It went to this point: Colleagues, we need to understand it. The American people need to understand it. Taxes, whatever rate they are, tend to grow with the economy. If the economy is going up 2 percent, more people make a little more money and taxes tend to go up 2 percent.

If the economy is growing at 2 percent and your spending is going up 5.4 percent, then you have a problem. You could raise taxes.

I asked Mr. Elmendorf about this. Even though we had a trillion- dollar deficit last year, a 1,000-plus billion-dollar deficit last year--unbelievable debt--almost 35 percent of the money we spent last year was borrowed. We will pay interest on that for decades to come. There is no plan to pay it down in any significant way.

I asked Mr. Elmendorf, if we raise taxes, instead of $650 billion as we did in January, if we raised them enough to balance the budget, would we stay in balance.

He acknowledged, if the economy continues to grow at 2 percent and growth of spending is at 5 percent, we will immediately be back into a problem area.

In one sense, this is the very definition of unsustainability. This is the very definition of the problem we have that spending is growing faster than the economy. It cannot maintain itself at that rate.

We can spend, and we can say we have a balanced plan, a balanced program, a balanced approach, as my colleagues have done. They know this budget never balances, not in 1 year, not in 10 years, not in 50 years. It will become worse in the second 10 years. It absolutely will be worse.

This is the path which, as Senator Cruz just indicated, Greece, Spain, and Italy have followed. This is why they are in trouble.

My colleagues say the economy isn't growing well, and it is not. We had virtually zero growth last quarter, zero. We are supposed to be moving out of the recession. As I pointed out last night, the CBO, for the last several years, has been predicting 4 percent growth but not this year. After missing about 2 percentage points for the last several years, they are predicting low growth this year.

What do our colleagues say? They say they have a balanced approach. They keep stating this.

I grew up in the country, where I went to a great little school. There were 30 in my senior class. I am proud of my classmates. My classmate is now president of the University of Alabama--out of our little class.

I know what a balanced approach means. It means nothing. A balanced approach is an unaccountable statement. It provides no ability for the American people to ascertain whether we are doing anything they promise because they don't promise anything. We promised a balanced approach. What does that mean?

Does it mean we raise taxes and cut spending by the same amount, $1 trillion each or does it mean we raise taxes by $1 trillion and raise spending by $1 trillion? They want us to believe they raise taxes by $1 trillion, they cut spending $1 trillion, and reduce the deficit $2 trillion. That is what they are suggesting to the American people. They are using the word ``balance'' and they hope people will hear it and think this means we have a balanced budget. They know they do not have a balanced budget. They won't tell the American people they do not have one, they just use the word. But it is not in their document.

Where and when do we hold people accountable in this Senate for an accurate statement of legislation? It is wrong. We have counted so far--this is pretty incredible--I think they have used the word ``balance'' 191 times. Does that reflect a guilty conscience or something, that they want people to think we have a balanced budget? We think we have a plan to get to a balanced budget. Oh, we have a balanced approach. But what does that mean? It means zero. The American people need to know this plan has no vision for America and it misrepresents what it does.

I know it is hard to write a budget with the Democratic Conference, which Politico says is being written from the left--by President Obama himself. I think that is probably accurate. The President's plan is irresponsible also. He has no real plan to do any of this, and he has publicly stated he does not think a balanced budget is important.

May I ask the Chair--we are moving along here, and I know there are other speakers coming, probably on both sides--to clarify our time situation and what the status is?

All right, fair enough.

I yield the floor.

I do have some remarks, and we will be having some speakers, who I think are on the way.

Well, the Ryan budget is not going to get rid of Pell grants. Is that the level of debate we have degenerated to here? The Ryan budget says we are not going to try to balance the budget too quickly. We are going to do it over 10 years. We will reach a balance.

We have calculated--and it is not disputed--that you can increase spending every year 3.4 percent and the budget will balance. You don't have to cut spending. When they talk about cuts, they are talking about reducing the projected rate of growth, and that is why we are going broke. That is why this country is losing its moorings. We have defined cutting spending as reducing the rate of growth.

You cannot sustain 5-percent growth--5.4-percent growth--when your economy is growing at 2 percent. And the experts tell us we are at a new normal and we are not going to see 5-percent growth in the future-- not likely. We might have a year or two of it. Bill Gross and his group at PIMCO, the great bond company, coined the phrase ``the new normal,'' and the new normal is that a mature economy such as ours, with an aging population, is not going to sustain some of the 9- and 10-percent growth rates that new and developing nations that are down here can achieve. I think that is probably something we have to accommodate, but we need to have policies that create as much growth as possible. That is absolutely true.

We had no growth last quarter--zero. The Congressional Budget Office has been predicting 3- and 4-percent growth the last 3 years. It is not there. It is not happening. The reason it is not happening is we have too much debt. The studies of the European Central Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Bank of International Settlements, and the magnificent ``This Time It's Different'' by Rogoff and Reinhart demonstrate that statistically, empirically, when nations have this high a debt--we are at 104 percent of GDP, and Rogoff and Reinhart used the gross debt of America, which is almost $17 trillion now, comparing the gross debt to the size of our economy--that the debt we are carrying is larger than our economy and we have to pay interest on that.

There are a lot of other ramifications and instabilities and concerns that ripple through businesses and foreign investors who are going to create jobs in America, but all sorts of people lose confidence in the country when the debt reaches that high. They say, from their studies of over 200 years of every country that has gone into fiscal crisis, that the debt began to pull them down. They conclude--these Harvard professors--that we could lose 1 to 2 percent of growth.

We are not growing. This is the slowest recovery from a recession since World War II, and I don't think this debt has been recognized in and of itself as a detriment to the economy. But what do our colleagues say the answer is? Tax more on the economy and borrow more. Don't reduce our debt. Get the sugar high now, as Mr. Gross at PIMCO said. All this borrowing and spending creates a sugar high and you have a hangover later.

This is so simple. You can't create something from nothing. You know, Julie Andrews had that great, great song in the ``Sound of Music,'' ``Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could.''

I met a man in Evergreen, AL, in a townhall meeting, who said: My daddy always said that you cannot borrow your way out of debt.

We need to listen to that kind of logic. I don't know who these people are who say that Paul Krugman said we can borrow, borrow, borrow. The other day, he said he didn't care--even if the Defense Department had a wasteful program. He said that we should not cut those programs. How ridiculous is that? I think that kind of thinking is the drive behind this budget, that we have to keep spending even if we keep running up the debt and somehow that is going to make America better and create economic growth.

I am worried about our working people. They are not doing well. Wages have not gone up in a decade. They are slipping below inflation. It is an absolute fact that has happened. The smart people in high-tech companies are doing well. A lot of them are making money. There are certain sectors of the economy that are doing well, but the economy itself is not moving, and I believe the net reason is revealed in the Rogoff-Reinhart analysis, which says that higher debt pulls down growth. So we have to do what families do and States have done and cities have done, and that is to tighten our belts a little bit.

We are proud of the food stamp program, also known as the SNAP program, but we find that it has all kinds of fraud and abuse in it, and it needs to be tightened up. I reject the idea that it is bad for the economy or will hurt people who are legitimately in need of food. We have not done anything like that since the 1996 welfare reform. We need to be doing that throughout the government.

One of the ways to create economic growth is to make American Government more productive and lean. Wouldn't that help? Let's ask this question: Is Mr. Krugman right? Should the government just spend regardless of whether the program is any good? Shouldn't we say to ourselves: Isn't it clear without any real dispute that if our government spent its money on things that are productive for America, this would make America stronger? We have to eliminate every single wasteful program. We don't have a single dollar to waste.

Our colleagues here are saying to the American people that there is nothing wrong. Our government is fine. We cannot cut any program. If we do, we will deny kids the right to go to college.

There is no reason Pell grants have to be salvaged, but maybe they need to be constricted a little bit. Maybe there are some abuses in those programs.

The growth of spending can increase every year at 3.4 percent. We are not required to damage, savage, or devastate the American economy to get the budget balanced. I appreciate the opportunity to share these remarks. I really believe the budget process is a bit messy and frustrating, but it is a good one. It has allowed us all to talk honestly about the great choices we face.

I am pleased to see Senator Thune, a supporter of the leadership on the Republican side, an outstanding Senator and longtime member of the Budget Committee who has been engaged in the financial issues of our time for quite a number of years.

I yield to Senator Thune at this time.

That is correct. We probably missed a few.

Mr. President, I would suggest we take this amendment by voice vote.

Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Budget Committee member Senator Toomey.

Mr. President, we can accept it on a voice vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the number of Budget Committee staff for the minority granted access to the floor at one time be increased by two.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize Senator Coburn for 22 minutes. I also have on our schedule of Members, Senator Collins for 10 minutes, Senator Cornyn for 10 minutes, Senator Inhofe for 10 minutes, and Senator Sessions for 8 minutes.

At this time I yield to Senator Coburn for 22 minutes. First, I would note that Senator Coburn is doing something that every Member of this body should be inspired by. He is actually working hard every day to identify the problems we face with duplication and waste in our government. We do far too little of that, and this budget does virtually nothing about it. So I would like to thank Senator Coburn for being unparalleled in his commitment to financial responsibility, and I yield to the Senator 22 minutes.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to Senator Collins. I would note that she has been a leader in governmental reform through the committee that she chaired and has been ranking member on. I would value her insight at this time.

I believe that would be appropriate.

Mr. President, I yield to my colleague and friend Senator Inhofe. I think Senator Inhofe was told he had 8 minutes but this says 5.

All right. There is 5 minutes, and if the Senator needs to go over that a little bit, I will understand.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I would recognize Senator Cornyn for up to 6 minutes.

I thank Senator Cornyn for his remarks. I think it is a cautionary tale that when you pass a bill with the very stated idea from the Democratic leader in the House that ``We will find out what is in it after we pass it'' then you know we are in trouble.

ObamaCare is a monstrosity of a bill that has 1,700 references that say we will execute this legislation pursuant to regulations to be issued by some nameless, faceless government operative somewhere. It will bind and affect the very health care of millions of Americans. I have become more and more convinced it will not work.

The budget that has been presented to us today fails to meet the challenge of our time. It does not alter, confront, or reform and put on a safe path our important Social Security and Medicare Programs, both of which are heading to deficit and disaster. They need to be fixed now. The sooner we fix them, the better off we will all be. And it can be done. It just requires some willingness to stand up and be counted and do the right thing.

There is no reform of the wasteful government duplicative spending that goes on. Senator Coburn just went through a whole litany of duplicative programs: 47 job-training programs, many education programs, huge duplication in highway programs throughout different agencies and departments of the government. We know those exist, and nothing has been done about it. It does not alter the debt course we are on and, in fact, keeps it at the same rate.

It says we are going to raise $1 trillion in taxes and we are going to cut spending $1 trillion, and this is the balanced approach. We have been told that over and over: This is a balanced approach.

But that is not what the budget does. It does indeed raise taxes--at least $1 trillion actually--and it increases spending. So the net result of this budget over 10 years is to have no effect on the deficit even though it raises taxes $1 trillion. A balanced approach, in the terms of my Democratic colleagues, is to raise taxes $1 trillion and raise spending $1 trillion. This is irresponsible.

I am baffled by the willingness of my colleagues to proceed in that fashion, representing the budget to be something it is not. I think they have a guilty conscience, perhaps. We have been trying to keep up with how many times they have used the word ``balanced.'' How many times in the last 2 days have the Democratic speakers all across the board--who have their poll-tested language used the word ``balanced,'' when in fact they have an unbalanced budget that does not change the debt course and leaves us on a financial path that the CBO Director said is unsustainable. But you know the American people want a balanced budget, so you say: We have got a balanced approach, a balanced plan, a balanced priority, and you use that word over and over, with the idea that it sinks into somebody's mind and they begin to believe that you have a balanced budget. I can hear an ad agency explaining how this works.

But we don't have a balanced budget. It never balances. It has no goal of balancing. It is no closer to balancing than the current baseline and current law we are spending on.

So we have calculated--and the numbers have gone up every hour--201 references on the floor of the Senate to ``balanced.'' It just now begins to highlight the fact of how unbalanced this is, how unbalanced this budget is, how it does not do what we need it to do.

Back when I opposed the nomination of Jack Lew, who was Chief of Staff and OMB Director, to be Secretary of the Treasury, we talked about his first budget. It was the same way. They decided in early 2011, after the 2010 shellacking, to produce a budget that did not come close to balance. They had a little problem because the American people had just whacked the big spenders in the 2000 election. So what did they decide to do? They just said it would balance. They said we are only spending money we have. We have a budget that does not add to the debt. We have a budget that begins to pay down the debt. All three of those things were utterly false. The lowest single deficit, in his own numbers he submitted to us, was $600 billion. That was the least that he had in his entire 10-year budget of what the deficit would be that year--$600 billion deficit. Yet he said we have a budget that pays down the debt, we have a budget that only spends money we have, and a budget you can be proud of.

That is what we have here. I hate to say it. My colleagues have produced a budget that utterly fails to alter the

debt course we are on. It raises taxes, but it does not use the taxes to reduce the deficit. It uses the taxes to fund new spending. It truly does.

That is the concern we have today. We will head now into the votes. I thank Senator Murray for allowing us to have free ability to speak and debate. We do not agree on these issues, but we will head into an afternoon that hopefully will allow our Members a full opportunity to get a vote on amendments, if they believe strongly in them. We hope we do not have needless amendments, that Members are looking and understand the needs of our time.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank Senator Murray. She has been a great person to work with. She is firm, clear, and tough, and has moved us forward. I always felt that when she made a decision, it was justified. She kept us under control and let us fuss and complain a bit. The content of the plan that the majority has moved forward I think explains why they have had difficulty revealing it from the beginning. It is because it is not the kind of budget that can be defended effectively. Honest people can disagree on policy, but there can be no disagreement, I believe, on the need to change our Nation's debt course. A singular truth that no one can escape is that the House budget changes our debt course while the Senate budget does not.

The Senate budget increases taxes, increases spending, and during that 10-year period another $7.3 trillion will be added to the debt. There will be no real deficit reduction, and it never balances. Republicans have given opportunity after opportunity, through votes, to produce a balanced budget, but that has been rejected.

The massive debt we racked up to finance our wasteful government is pulling down economic growth today. This is so important for us to understand. Gross debt--over 90 percent of GDP--weakens growth; not tomorrow, it is weakening growth today. In other words, continuing to borrow to bail out the government, and keep checks flowing, creates debt that pulls down wages, jobs, and job creation. It is time to stop shielding the government bureaucracy, which is hurting people today.

There is nothing virtuous about defending a broken welfare state that is trapping millions in poverty. Every time our colleagues raise taxes instead of reforming the government, they are enriching that bureaucracy at the expense of the people. When they demand more money, they are saying that reform is not important, just send us more money; we are not at fault.

I will conclude and say, we have to move away from a budget and a plan that enriches the bureaucracy at the expense of the American people.

I thank Senator Murray for her courtesy.

Madam President, I suggest we do this by voice vote.

Mr. President, I wish to thank Ranking Member Sessions once again for another good day of vigorous debate. There are clearly some differences between us in the Senate, but all our constituents benefit from having those views laid out and expressed clearly. I appreciate all he is doing to help us move along as well as have the good debate we are having.

Yesterday, the Senate did vote to reject the idea that balancing the budget by an arbitrary date should come before middle-class families and broad-based economic growth. Last night, the Senate voted to continue down the path toward a truly balanced approach to tackling our economic and fiscal challenges. It is the kind of approach that cuts spending responsibly and calls on the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share.

We voted on an approach that puts our economy first and foremost and makes sure we are protecting, not threatening, our fragile economic recovery. That is the kind of approach that is supported by the vast majority of the American people, and the Senate stood strongly behind that.

The Senate strongly rejected the budget that passed the House of Representatives yesterday. Their budget would meet the goal by balancing the budget with an arbitrary date but would do it in a way that would be devastating for our families and the economy. It would dismantle Medicare and end up cutting taxes for the rich while raising them on the middle class; not only that, but it did rely on gimmicks and tricks to hit that arbitrary date. There is nothing balanced about that kind of approach. I am very glad every Member of the Senate had an opportunity to be clear about where we stand on that.

The Senate also voted yesterday to specifically reject the idea that Medicare should be dismantled or voucherized. I am glad we had strong bipartisan support on that amendment. We also voted clearly for the idea that while both sides favor closing tax loopholes and ending wasteful deductions that favor the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations, the Senate thinks some of that revenue should be used to tackle the deficit and invest in the middle class, not to be used to simply cut tax rates for the rich the way the House budget did.

We have a few more hours of debate this morning between now and 11 a.m., followed by some votes, and then we will close out the debate and move on to all the rest of the votes we will take before final passage late tonight or early tomorrow morning.

As the majority leader said, we have hundreds of amendments. If we were to vote on all of them, we would be here every single hour voting between Monday and Tuesday. I think every Member knows that is probably not going to happen. I encourage every Member of the Senate to work with the manager on their side so we can get the amendments up sooner rather than later and vote on the ones each side wants us to.

I urge all my colleagues to work with us and our staff to make sure we know where the priorities are, how to proceed, and we will work with everyone to combine similar amendments. Obviously, among those 400 amendments, there are a number that are similar. We will clear as many noncontroversial amendments by voice vote as we can, and we will get through as many votes as possible in a fair and reasonable manner. We look forward to working with Senator Sessions to make sure we can do that.

I encourage our colleagues--there is a bit more time for them to have their say before we vote. If anyone would like to have their say, make sure our staffs know before making any statements.

With that, I yield to my colleague, Senator Sessions.

Mr. President, I am very proud of the balance we have put forward in our budget that makes sure all Americans in this country participate in solving the great crisis in front of us in terms of managing our debt and deficit. We are doing exactly what the American people have asked us to do--making sure that everyone participates.

To me, as someone who has been involved for a long time in taking care of my own family and my community, balance is an important word, and I am very proud of the balance we put into this in terms of the American public.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. President, I am happy to yield 3 additional minutes to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Iowa for his long-time passion for young people in this country. As chair of the Education and Health Committee, he has committed his time to making sure those who are least among us have opportunity in this country. That is so important. He has spoken eloquently against the Cruz amendment, reminding all of us that amendment isn't just about repealing health care but actually taking away the ability for students to be able to go to college on Pell grants and student loans.

I would not be standing in front of us today if our country hadn't invested in me way back to give me the ability to go to college on student loans and Pell grants. So I want to thank him, on behalf of a very grateful country, for his long-time work on this. And as we all know, the Senator will be retiring. We will miss his voice, but his passion will always remain here.

With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I withhold my request.

I thank the Chair.

I want to thank my friend from New Jersey on his previous work to highlight how our budget impacts children and on his efforts to do so again today. I agree with him that it is important that we have a full accounting of how the Federal Government serves children throughout our Nation. However, my friend is correct, and due to the strict procedural guidelines of the budget resolution an amendment that is primarily focused on executive branch agencies falls outside the scope of a concurrent resolution such as the one we are debating today. However, I want to assure my friend that I will work closely with him to find a path forward on the children's budget and achieve our shared goal of ensuring that the government is doing its best to efficiently and effectively serve our Nation's children.

Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire and 7 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. President, the Senator from Minnesota has requested 10 minutes, and I yield to him 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Minnesota, as we prepare to go through a series of votes, for reminding us that a budget is not just numbers on a piece of paper. It really is a statement of our values and what we care about and how we are going to invest in our country so we have strong jobs in the future and a strong economy. We really base this budget on those principles, and the Senator from Minnesota reminded us all of that so well today, and I thank him for his statement.

We are within a minute of beginning the vote, so I would remind my colleagues we have a busy day ahead of us. We on our side are very proud of the budget we have put forward that focuses on jobs and the economy, in this fragile time getting people back to work, getting them the resources they need to have a strong future, whether it is education or infrastructure or the research and development that creates the kind of jobs that the Senator from Minnesota has focused on. We on this side do deeply understand the need to manage our debt and deficit responsibly. It is why we have put forward a credible approach, a balanced approach, that makes sure we are cutting, in many programs the Presiding Officer and I care deeply about, but understanding this is the time we are in, where we have to relook at these programs and manage them effectively, and we have done that in our budget. There are many tough choices we have in front of us, but the tough choices we have put forward in this budget reflect the balance the American people have asked us to make in our budget approach.

I look forward to having it passed sometime, I am sure, in the wee hours of the morning. This budget moves us toward a place where we can work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle and both sides of this city to come together in a way that gets us back on a path so we are not managing this country from crisis to crisis, but are working effectively together to move forward in this country.

So with that, Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time.

Amendment No. 431

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Mikulski, the first amendment she has offered is a very important one.

We all know pay discrimination in the workplace is very real. We know women are nearly half of our workforce, but they still only earn about 77 percent of what men earn, and women of color are much worse off. African-American women make 70 cents on the dollar. Hispanic women make only 60 cents on the dollar. We want to make sure all of our families are strong and stable in the future, and pay discrimination is something that is holding women and families and communities back.

So a ``no'' vote on this means you are actually OK with women earning less pay than men--women not being able to contribute to their families in a strong way so their children can be taken care of and they can pay their mortgage or their rent and put food on the table.

A ``yes'' vote on this amendment means you acknowledge this as a problem and agree that women must receive equal pay for equal work.

I want to thank the Senator from Maryland for her long-time advocacy on behalf of women in many ways, but particularly on making sure they have equal pay.

Mr. President, on our side I believe we are happy to have a voice vote on this amendment. And I urge a strong yes. It sets a great tone, by the way, for the rest of the day.

Mr. President, as I have said many times, this budget asks the wealthiest Americans and our biggest corporations to pay just a little bit more, both to get our fiscal house in order and to make critical investments that will help drive broad-based economic growth.

Economists across the political spectrum will tell you that raising revenues from those who can afford it most will not hurt our economy. In fact, our experience during the 1990s proves that fact. In fact, raising revenues by closing loopholes and cutting inefficient spending in the Tax Code for the

wealthiest Americans, as our budget proposes, actually stands to boost the economy by removing tax breaks that distort the allocation of capital.

This amendment that is being offered would effectively end the privileged status of a balanced and fair budget plan, such as this one, that calls on the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share in order to address our deficits and get our economy going again.

I strongly encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

I yield to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, we are going to have a lot of amendments, so if we have a lot of floor discussion, this is only going to delay it. I would encourage Senators throughout the day to please take their conversations off the floor after the votes so Senators who are speaking on the amendments on both sides of the aisle have the consideration of being heard.

I will take my 1 minute on this amendment.

Mr. President, the Senate budget already includes a deficit-neutral reserve fund for tax relief. This amendment would make that relief for low- and middle-income Americans explicit, but it would do it in a way that preserves the health care benefits in the Affordable Health Care Act.

Unfortunately, the amendment that follows this one will gut the ACA and leave millions of Americans back in a position where they have to worry about a preexisting condition or a health illness that could bankrupt their household. We have to make sure

taxes do not hit low-and middle-income families, but we should do it in a responsible way that doesn't take away health care for millions of Americans.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, it is ironic that a number of those taxes are in the Ryan budget that our colleagues voted for last night. But let me say this. The ACA is going to extend health care coverage to nearly 30 million people. They are mostly low- and middle-income people who don't have access to affordable coverage. The law also fully pays for the costs of expanding health insurance coverage and does it without increasing taxes on our middle class.

I believe expanding health care insurance coverage is one of the most important things we can do for our country and for our economy. The amendment that is being offered would undermine the effort under way to bring health insurance to millions of currently uninsured people in a fiscally responsible fashion.

I urge our colleagues to oppose this amendment and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 438

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we are now in a period of 2 hours of debate equally divided. I understand Senators on that side will begin.

I would like to notify all Senators we are now working through a process to get the next amendment set in order so that Members will know. We do have 2 hours of debate, but Members should know that we may yield back some of that time. So please be ready. I think everybody has a lot of amendments they want to have brought up, and the sooner we can get to that the sooner we will.

So, again, we will now move to 2 hours of debate equally divided.

I yield the floor.

May I ask the Senator from Alabama if the Senator from Virginia may speak for 10 minutes? I see the Senator has some speakers on his side?

Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Virginia for helping to craft this budget and for his intense focus on making sure we reach a balanced agreement for our Nation's future. This has been his lifelong passion, and he has done a great job. He is a great working partner, and I appreciate all of his experience.

I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be divided equally between both sides.

Madam President, how much time do I have?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, the only time left in debate right now is Democratic time. But in a spirit of bipartisanship, I yield 5 minutes of our Democratic time to the Senator from Nevada.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, we have about 12 minutes remaining. I ask unanimous consent to give 2 minutes of my time to my colleague for his closing remarks, and I will take the last 10 minutes.

I want all of my colleagues to know that we will start votes right after we are finished with our closing remarks.

Madam President, I want to thank all of my colleagues in the Senate--and in particular, my ranking member Jeff Sessions--for their valuable contributions to the debate we have had over the last few days and weeks. While there are clear areas of disagreement about how to restore our Nation's fiscal health, this is an important conversation, and one we can build on.

We all like the word ``balanced.'' As chair of the Senate Budget Committee, a critical part of my role is making sure the voices of the American people

are heard in the budget process. I believe that budgets are about far more than numbers on a page. They are about the values and priorities of the American people. In their daily lives, families across our country will feel the impact of the plan we lay out in a budget, and they deserve a seat at the table. That is why at one of my first hearings as chairman, we invited inspiring Americans to speak about how the Federal budget impacts their day-to-day lives and the opportunities they have had to reach their own goals.

A young woman from New Hampshire named Katyanne Zink attended my hearing. She grew up in a low-income neighborhood in New Hampshire. Her parents didn't go to college themselves, but they desperately wanted the best for their children. Thanks to a great public school teacher who encouraged her to aim high, and with the help of Pell grants and student loans, Katyanne was able to go to college. She is now giving back to her community as an urgent care nurse. Tara Marks of Pittsburgh also spoke at our hearing. Tara never expected to find herself in poverty, but when she was suddenly hit by hard times, she temporarily depended on food stamps to feed herself and her young son. Tara firmly believes that without help when she needed it the most, she would not have been able to get back on her feet.

We heard from Patrick Murray, who is an Operation Iraqi Freedom veteran. Patrick explained that after suffering severe injuries while serving his country, Federal support helped him live independently so he could focus on finishing his degree.

The stories that Katyanne, Tara, and Patrick shared are just a few of the millions we must keep at the forefront of this discussion because the interest of hard-working Americans must come first in our decisionmaking. I am proud that the Senate budget my colleagues and I put forward does exactly that. The first priority of our Senate budget is creating jobs and economic growth from the middle out, not from the top down.

With an unemployment rate that remains stubbornly high and a middle class that has seen their wages stagnate for far too long, we cannot afford any threats to our fragile recovery. That is exactly why our budget responsibly replaces the harmful and arbitrary cuts from sequestration. It removes the unnecessary burden on our economy that would lower employment by almost 750,000 jobs this year alone. Following the advice of experts across the political spectrum, the Senate budget invests in education and job creation targeted through infrastructure and training initiatives while putting in place a responsible plan for deficit reduction over the long term. To secure strong economic growth in the future, our budget invests in our greatest resource, the American people, by strongly supporting high- quality education from preschool through college and career training.

As my colleague Senator Warner said so eloquently here earlier on the floor, we have to stay ahead of our competition. Our budget supports Federal R&D, which will help us make sure that growing industries and the jobs which come with them take root in the United States, not in China or India.

This budget also recognizes that getting our debt and deficit under control is crucial to our Nation's economic strength in the coming years. Our Senate budget puts forward serious, responsible deficit reduction that reflects the recommendations of bipartisan experts and the values and priorities of the American people.

Back in 2010, the Simpson-Bowles Fiscal Commission recommended finding about $4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years. This has become, as we all know, the benchmark for other serious bipartisan proposals. Building on the $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction put in place over the last 2 years, our Senate budget pushes us past that $4 trillion benchmark with $1.85 trillion in deficit reduction that is evenly divided between responsible spending cuts and new revenue from the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations.

This budget cuts spending responsibly by $975 billion, and we make some pretty tough choices to get there. By taking the balanced approach the American people have consistently called for, our Senate budget matches those responsible spending cuts with $975 billion in new revenue, which is raised by closing loopholes and cutting unfair spending in the Tax Code for those who need it the least. This should not be controversial. There is bipartisan support for reducing the deficit by making the Tax Code more fair and more efficient.

If our Senate budget is enacted, the total deficit reduction since the Simpson-Bowles report will consist of 64 percent spending cuts, 14 percent tax rate increases on the rich, and 22 percent new revenue by closing loopholes and cutting wasteful spending in the Tax Code for the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations. We will have put our debt and deficit on a downward, sustainable path. This is a responsible approach. It is a balanced and fair approach. It is one that is endorsed by bipartisan groups and experts, and it is one supported by the vast majority of American people.

The Senate budget takes the position that the solution to our fiscal challenges will not be found in deep cuts to programs vulnerable families depend on. It maintains crucial services that mothers such as Tara and millions of other families struck by hard times have used as a way to make ends meet while they recover. The Senate budget preserves and protects Medicare for seniors today and into the future.

As Senator Stabenow explained on the floor so well yesterday, Medicare is vital to the health and well-being of more than 50 million seniors and Americans with disabilities. Upholding our commitment to seniors and helping struggling Americans get back on their feet is not just good for our economy, it is the right thing to do.

I realize there are serious differences between the parties, and in the last few years it has been especially polarized here in Congress. But the House has now passed its budget resolution. We will be working here in the Senate to pass ours sometime late this evening. We have presented very different visions for how our country should work and who it should work for, but I am hopeful that we can bridge this divide.

As we look ahead now, I urge my colleagues to think of the millions of Americans such as Katyanne, Tara, and Patrick. I urge them to think of the millions of middle-class families across the country who are looking to all of us to get this right; families who want us to invest in them and their communities; who want us to focus on the economy and on opportunity and the future; who are not looking for a handout, just a hand up when they need it; a government that works for them during the good times and the bad; and who desperately want us to break through this gridlock and end the dysfunction that is hurting our economy and costing them jobs. They are what this debate is about. They are who sent us all here to represent them.

The Senate budget works for families. It is a balanced and responsible plan that will tackle our economic and fiscal challenges in a way that puts the middle class and broad-based economic growth first.

When this comes up for a final vote tonight, I am going to be proud to vote for it, and I hope all of my colleagues will do the same.

When this passes the Senate, by the way, the work is far from complete. I will be working with Chairman Ryan in the House and anyone else who is interested in coming together to make some compromises, and to get to a balanced and bipartisan deal that the American people expect and deserve. It is not going to be easy, but I am hopeful it can be done. I know the families who sent us here expect nothing less.

I wish to thank Senator Sessions again for working with me on this. We have different views on many issues, but I am proud of the work we did together to make sure we had a robust and fair debate in the committee and here on the Senate floor. I also wish to thank all of his staff who have worked so hard, all of our staff who are continuing to work--all of them--very hard behind the scenes to pull this together. I wish to thank all of my colleagues again on the Budget Committee for contributing their ideas and their thoughts and their values to this resolution. I believe we have a very strong budget here. I am proud to vote for it, and I am very glad to have worked with so many people to get us to this point and, hopefully, in not too many hours we will pass the budget in

the Senate and can go to work for the American people.

Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The Senator from Alabama has asked for 2 minutes and I would be happy to oblige him as we are trying to work out an agreement to get going on votes. I yield him 2 minutes.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I thank all of our Members for their patience. I think we have an agreement put together, and we will be able to get going, so I would ask for everybody's attention.

I ask unanimous consent that the next amendments in order to be called up after the disposition of the Republican side-by-side amendments to Shaheen No. 438 be the following: Menendez No. 651, Coburn No. 409, Whitehouse No. 652, Blunt No. 261, Boxer No. 622, Hoeven No. 494, Durbin No. 578, Murray No. 653, and Collins No. 144; and that the only second-degree amendments in order prior to the votes in relation to the amendments listed above be the following amendments to the Durbin amendment No. 578: Enzi No. 656, Ayotte No. 657, and Baucus No. 658, to be offered in that order en bloc; that notwithstanding all time having expired on the resolution, there will be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote, with the exception of the vote prior to the Enzi second-degree amendment No. 656 to Durbin No. 578, where there will be 40 minutes--10 minutes each for Senators Durbin, Enzi, Ayotte, and Baucus, or their designees; that the order of votes with respect to the second-degree amendments to Durbin No. 578 be the following: Enzi, Ayotte, and Baucus; that upon disposition of the Collins amendment No. 144, the majority have the next amendment in order; finally, that all after the first vote will be 10 minutes.

Madam President, we are now going to be starting a series of votes. I would ask Members to stay in the Chamber. We are going to be very strict on the time in making sure we move through these.

Again, I would ask all Senators to please respect those Senators who are speaking so that they can be heard, keep the conversations in the cloakroom, and be ready to vote.

I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Colorado.

Madam President, our side is amenable. If both Senators agree, we will do this by voice vote.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, this amendment would allow any employer or insurance company to refuse to cover any health care services for women based on their own religious beliefs and moral convictions that have nothing to do with the health needs of those denied coverage.

The compromise put forward by President Obama ensures that religious liberty is respected while ensuring that women can get access to the health care they need. Last year, Judge Carol Jackson, who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush, ruled in support of this compromise, saying that Federal religious freedom law is ``a shield, not a sword . . . it is not a means to force one's religious practices upon others.''

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Madam President, for the information of all the Senators, that vote went a little bit over. We will not let votes go over. Anyone who is not in the Chamber is going to miss a vote. We have to be able to do this in order to move expeditiously. I want to let all Senators know they leave at their own peril.

With that, I am going to turn to Senator Menendez so he may offer his amendment.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition.

First, there was an error made in the number for the Whitehouse amendment for this sequence of votes. I ask unanimous consent that the Whitehouse amendment No. 646 be put on the list instead of Whitehouse No. 652.

Mr. President, the amendment the Senator has offered would reverse a provision in the Affordable Care Act which required that Medicare's area wage index changes be spread budget neutrally throughout the entire Nation.

I, as do many, recognize that Medicare's area wage index reimbursement system does require a thorough review and revision. But the amendment in front of us now singles out one provision that negatively affects some areas while ignoring the larger payment reform.

I believe Congress should have a larger discussion on area wage index reform within the committees of jurisdiction, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, we are ready to call up the next amendment.

Mr. President, today I rise to re-introduce three bills that will better protect unique and important areas in the beautiful state of Oregon. Two of these passed out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee the last two Congresses. I am pleased to again be joined on these bills with my colleague from Oregon, Senator MerklEy. I look forward to working with Senator Merkley, other colleagues and other supporters of the bills to keep up the fight for these special places in Oregon.

The first bill I am introducing--the Oregon Caves Revitalization Act of 2013--will enhance the existing Oregon Caves National Monument to protect this majestic site for future generations. The bill expands the boundary of the National Park Service land to create the Oregon Caves National Monument and Preserve.

A Presidential Proclamation in 1909 established 480 acres of natural wonder as the Oregon Caves National Monument in the botanically-rich Siskiyou Mountains. At the time, the focus was on the unique subsurface resources, and the small, rectangular boundary was thought to be adequate to protect the cave. However, scientific research has since provided much greater insight into the cave's ecology and its hydrological processes, for which 480 acres is inadequate. The National Park Service formally proposed boundary modification numerous times--in 1939, 1949, and 2000.

My bill expands protections in and around the Oregon Caves National Monument. The entirety of the Cave Creek Watershed would be included in the park site, transferring management of 4,070 acres of United States Forest Service land to the National Park Service. Hunters will still have recreational access to this land since it will be designated a Preserve.

And the expansion of the Monument's boundary would be incomplete

without protecting the water that enters the cave so as to preserve the cave's resources. My legislation would designate at least 9.6 miles of rivers and tributaries as Wild, Scenic, or Recreational, under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act--including the first Wild and Scenic subterranean river, the ``River Styx.'' A perennial stream, the River Styx--an underground portion of Cave Creek--flows through part of the cave and is one of the dynamic natural forces at work in the National Monument. In addition, this bill would authorize the retirement of existing grazing allotments. The current grazing permitee, Phil Krouse's family, has had the Big Grayback Grazing Allotment, 19,703 acres, since 1937. Mr. Krouse has publicly stated that he would look favorably upon retirement with private compensation for his allotment, which my legislation will allow to proceed.

The Oregon Caves National Monument offers important contributions to Southern Oregon and the nation. The cave ecosystem provides habitat for one of the highest concentrations of biological diversity anywhere. And as the longest marble cave open to the public west of the Continental Divide, the Monument receives over 80,000 visitors annually. A larger Monument boundary will help showcase more fully the recreational opportunities on the above-ground lands within the proposed Monument boundary.

I want to express my thanks to the conservation and business communities of southern Oregon, who have worked diligently to protect these lands and waters.

My second bill is the Devil's Staircase Wilderness Act of 2013. Under this bill, approximately 30,500 acres of rugged, wild, pristine, and remote land surrounding the Wasson Creek area will be designated wilderness. In fact the area is so rugged that federal land managers have withdrawn this landslide-prone forest from all timber activity numerous times. At the heart of this coastal rainforest lies Devil's Staircase, a crystal clear waterfall that cascades over slab after slab of sandstone. The Devil's Staircase proposal typifies what Wilderness in Oregon is all about.

The proposed Devil's Staircase Wilderness is the finest old-growth forest remaining in Oregon's Coast Range, boasting huge Douglas-fir, cedar and hemlock. The ecological significance of this treasure is as clear as the water running through Devil's Staircase. The land is protected as a Late-Successional Reserve by the Northwest Forest Plan, as critical habitat for the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet, and as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern by the Bureau of Land Management. Preserving these majestic forests as Wilderness for their wildlife and spectacular scenery not only matches the goals of the existing land management plans but also permanently protects this natural gem for future generations. The wilderness designation is needed to protect these areas permanently.

My bill would not only protect the forests surrounding Wasson Creek but would also designate approximately 4.5 miles of Franklin Creek and approximately 10.1 miles of Wasson Creek as Wild and Scenic Rivers. Franklin Creek, a critically important tributary to the Umpqua River, is one of the best examples of pristine salmon habitat left in Oregon. Together with Wasson Creek, these two streams in the Devil's Staircase area deserve Wild and Scenic River designation by Congress.

The third bill I am introducing is the Oregon Treasures Act of 2013. This bill seeks to provide protections for five significant areas in Oregon. They are the Chetco River, the Molalla River, the Rogue River, and Horse Heaven and Cathedral Rock. Each of these parts of the bill aim to protect natural treasures in Oregon, preserve them for use and enjoyment for generations to come, and build upon the economic opportunities they provide for their local communities.

The Oregon Treasures Act of 2013 includes a provision to protect two of Oregon's natural treasures, Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven. This wilderness designation has been introduced in the two most recent Congresses. The Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven wilderness proposal will do more than simply protect these areas. It will also help Oregon's economy, because visitors from all over the world come to my state to experience firsthand the unique scenic beauty of place like the lands preserved by this bill.

This legislation will consolidate what is currently a splintered ownership of land in this area and protect 17,340 acres of new Wilderness along the Lower John Day River. The fractured land ownership in this area makes it difficult for visitors to fully appreciate these areas when they hike, fish or hunt there because of the scattered and misunderstood lines of private and public ownership. This bill will solve that problem and make these lands more inviting to visitors while giving the landowners more contiguous property to call home.

The area in question is stunning. The Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven Wilderness proposals encompass dramatic basalt cliffs and rolling hills of juniper, sagebrush and native grasses. These new areas build on the desert Spring Basin Wilderness that was established in 2009 as a result of legislation I introduced, and are located directly across the John Day River from Spring Basin.

With 500 miles of undammed waters, the John Day River is the second- longest free-flowing river in the continental United States and is a place that is cherished by Oregonians. The Lower John Day Wild and Scenic River offers world-class opportunities for outdoor recreation as well as crucial wildlife habitat for elk, mule deer, bighorn sheep and native fish such as salmon and steelhead trout. Through land consolidation between public and private landowners, this legislation will allow for better management and easier public access for this important natural treasure. With the current fragmentation of public and private land ownership in the area, river campsites are limited. Many federal lands among them can't be reached by the hikers, campers and other outdoors recreationists who could most appreciate them. With the equal-value land exchanges included in this bill, public lands would be consolidated into two new Wilderness areas. This would enhance public safety, improve land management, and increase public access and recreational opportunities. I want to recognize that some have raised concerns about the lack of roaded access to Cathedral Rock. I have engaged the private landowners on this issue to seek a solution. Whatever the outcome, I do know that the Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven proposal will create an incredible, new heritage for public lands recreationists who are an important factor in keeping Oregon's economy healthy and thriving.

Rafters of the John Day River can attest to the need for more campsites and public access to the Cathedral Rock area. Backcountry hunters will be able to scan the hillsides for elk, deer and game-birds without having to worry about accidentally trespassing on someone's private land. Anglers will be able to access nearly 5 miles of the John Day River that today are only reachable from privately owned lands. Likewise, such a solution ensures that local landowners can manage their lands effectively without running across unwitting trespassers.

One good example of the value of these land swaps is Young Life's Washington Family Ranch. This Ranch is home to a Christian youth camp that welcomes over 20,000 kids to the lower John Day area each year. This bill sets out private and public land boundaries that can be clearly seen on the ground and these boundaries create a safer area for campers on the Ranch; this serves the children who visit the area well and ensures the continued viability of the Ranch, which, in turn, provides big economic dividends to the local community.

The Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven Wilderness proposal is described as ``win-win-win'' by many stakeholders--nearly five miles of new river access for the public and protected land for outdoor enthusiasts; better management for private landowners and public agencies; and important habitat protections for sensitive and endangered species. This proposal is an example of the positive solutions that can result when varied, bipartisan interests in a community come together to craft solutions that will work for everyone. I especially want to thank the Oregon Natural Desert Association, Young Life, and Matt Smith for their role in developing this collaborative solution

that will benefit all Oregonians. The Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven Wilderness areas will help make sure that this rural area will enjoy the benefits that permanently connecting these disparate pieces of natural landscape will bring for generations to come.

Additionally the Oregon Treasures Act protects the Chetco River. For over a decade, I've advocated for protections for the Chetco and other threatened waterways in Southwest Oregon. Part of the Oregon Treasures Act of 2013 would withdraw about three miles of the Chetco River from mineral entry, while upgrading the designations for some portions.

This river is under persistent threat from out-of-state suction dredge miners. In 2010, the group American Rivers listed the Chetco as the seventh most endangered river in the country because of those threats. Withdrawing these portions of the river from future mineral entry will prevent future harmful mining claims and make sure that those claims that already exist are valid.

The Chetco is also hugely important for salmon habitat and local sport fishing. The passage of this legislation would mean protecting that habitat, and promoting the continued success of the fishing industry throughout the West Coast. I am pleased the Obama administration has taken some steps to protect this area, but the passage of this legislation is needed to ensure long-term protection for this important river.

Next, the Oregon Treasures Act of 2013 would add 60,000 acres of new wilderness to the existing Wild Rogue Wilderness. The Wild Rogue Wilderness expansion would protect habitat for bald eagles, osprey, spotted owls, bear, elk, cougar, wild coho, wild Chinook, wild steelhead, green sturgeon, and many others. The Wild Rogue Wilderness and the Rogue River that runs through it embody one of the nation's premier recreation destinations, famous for the free flowing waters which provide numerous rafting and fishing opportunities.

The headwaters of the Rogue River start in one of Oregon's other great gems--Crater Lake National Park--and the river ultimately empties into the Pacific Ocean, near Gold Beach on Oregon's southwest coast. Along that stretch, the Rogue River flows through one of the most spectacular canyons and diverse natural areas in the United States. The Rogue River is a world class rafting river, offering everything from one day trips to week long trips through deep forested canyons. On the land, the Rogue River trail is also one of Oregon's most renowned backpacking routes.

The legislation would also protect an additional 143 miles of tributaries that feed the Rogue River with cold clean water. Of that number, 93 miles would be designated Wild and Scenic Rivers and an additional 50 miles would be protected from mining. The areas receiving protection include Galice Creek, Little Windy Creek, Jenny Creek, Long Gulch and 36 other tributaries of the Rogue. The Rogue River is one of Oregon's most iconic and beloved rivers. It is a river that teems with salmon leaping up rapids to spawn, and finds rafters down those very same rapids at other times of the year.

I previously introduced legislation to protect the Rogue River tributaries in the last three Congresses. Since it was first introduced, I have worked with the timber industry and conservationists to find a compromise that protects one of America's treasures with additional wilderness designations and more targeted protections for the Rogue's tributaries. I am pleased that 95 local businesses--and over 120 organizations and business in total--support protecting the Wild Rogue, and that support grows every day. Many of those businesses directly benefit from the Wild Rogue and the Rogue River. As I often say, protecting these gems is not just good for the environment, but also good for the economy. These protected landscapes are powerhouses of the recreation economy that draws visitors from around the world to this region and the Rogue River is one of Oregon's most important sport and commercial fisheries. The Wild Rogue is the second largest salmon fishery in Oregon behind the Columbia. The Wild Rogue provides the quality of life and recreational opportunities that create an economic engine that attracts businesses and brings in tourists from around the world. The Rogue River supports more than 400 local jobs in nearby communities like Grants Pass.

By protecting the Wild Rogue landscape and the tributaries that feed the mighty Rogue River, Congress will ensure that future generations can raft, fish, hike and enjoy the Wild Rogue as it is enjoyed today and that the recreational economy of this region remains strong.

Lastly, there is another provision in the bill to designate segments of Oregon's Molalla River as Wild and Scenic. An approximately 15.1- mile segment of the Molalla River and an approximately 6.2-mile segment of Table Rock Fork Molalla River would be designated as a recreational river under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

Including these river segments would protect a popular Oregon destination that provides abundant recreational activities that help fuel the recreation economy that is so important to the communities along the river. The scenic beauty of the Molalla River provides a backdrop for hiking, mountain biking, camping, and horseback riding, while the waters of the river are a popular destination for fishing, kayaking, and whitewater rafting enthusiasts. This legislation would not only preserve this area as a recreation destination, but would also protect the river habitat of the Chinook salmon and Steelhead trout, along with the wildlife habitat surrounding the river, home to the northern spotted owl, the pileated woodpecker, golden and bald eagles, deer, elk, the pacific giant salamander, and many others. The Molalla River is also the source of clean drinking water for the towns of Molalla and Canby, Oregon. Protecting the approximately 21.3 miles of the Molalla River will provide the residents of these Oregon towns with the assurance that they will continue to receive clean drinking water.

I would like to reiterate my continued appreciation for the Molalla River Alliance--a coalition of more than 48 member-organizations that recognize that this river is a jewel and have set out to protect it. This Alliance made sure that irrigators, city councilors, the mayor, businesses and environmentalists all came together on this.

Oregon's wildlands play an increasingly important role in the economic development of our state, especially in traditionally rural areas east of the Cascades. Visitors come from thousands of miles away to hike, fish, raft and hunt in Oregon's desert Wilderness. Beyond tourism, the rich quality of life and the diverse natural amenities that we enjoy as Oregonians are key to attracting new businesses to Oregon. And with all these bills, I express my gratitude for the many groups and individuals who have worked diligently to protect these special places. I look forward to working with Senator Merkley, Representative DeFazio, Representative Schrader and other colleagues and the bill's other supporters to keep up the fight for these unique places in Oregon and get these pieces of legislation to the President's desk for his signature.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Paul, McConnell, and Merkley in introducing the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2013.

As some folks will recall, I introduced a similar bill as an amendment to the Senate Farm Bill last year in an attempt to empower American farmers and increase domestic economic activity. Unfortunately, this amendment didn't receive a vote. Doubly unfortunate is the fact that a senseless regulation that flunks the common-sense test is still on our nation's books.

Members of Congress hear a lot about how dumb regulations are hurting economic growth and job creation. The current ban on growing industrial hemp makes no sense at all, and what is worse, this regulation is hurting job creation in rural America and increasing our trade deficit.

If my colleagues take the time to learn about this outrageous restriction on free enterprise, I am sure most senators would say that what I am talking about is the poster child for dumb regulation.

The only thing standing in the way of taking advantage of this profitable crop is a lingering misunderstanding about its use. The bill my colleagues and I have filed will end this ridiculous regulation.

Right now, the United States is importing over $10 million in hemp products to use in textiles, foods, paper products, and construction materials. We are importing a crop that U.S. farmers could be profitably growing right here at home, if not for government rules prohibiting it.

Our neighbors to the north certainly see the potential for this product. In 2010, the Canadian government injected over $700,000 into their blossoming hemp industry to increase the size of their hemp crop and fortify the inroads they have made into U.S. markets. It was a good bet. U.S. imports have consistently grown over the past decade, increasing by 300 percent in 10 years, and from 2009 to 2010 they grew 35 percent. The number of acres in Canada devoted to growing hemp nearly doubled from 2011 to 2012. So it should come as no surprise that the United States imports around 90 percent of its hemp from Canada.

Now, I know it is tough for some members of Congress to talk about hemp and not connect it to marijuana. I want to point out that even though they come from the same species of plant, there are major differences between them.

You know, the Chihuahua and St. Bernard come from the same species, too, Canis lupus familiaris, but no one is going to confuse them. Also, the domestic dog is a subspecies of the gray wolf, Canis lupus, and no one is going to confuse those two either. So let's recognize the real differences between hemp and marijuana, and focus on the benefits from producing domestically the hemp we already use.

Under our bill, the production of industrial hemp would still be regulated, but it would be done by States, not the Federal Government.

Pro-hemp legislation has been introduced in eight states, and several others have already removed barriers to industrial hemp production. Under our bill, industrial hemp is defined as having extremely low THC levels: it has to be 0.3 percent or less. The lowest commercial grade marijuana typically has 5% THC content. The bottom line is that no one is going to get high on industrial hemp. To guarantee that won't be the case, our legislation allows the U.S. Attorney General to take action if a state law allows commercial hemp to exceed the maximum 0.3 percent THC level.

Hemp has been a profitable commodity in many other countries. In addition to Canada, Australia also permits hemp production and the growth in that sector helped their agricultural base survive when the tobacco industry dried up. Over 30 countries in Europe, Asia, and North and South America currently permit farmers to grow hemp, and China is the world's largest producer.

In fact, the U.S. is the only industrialized nation that prohibits farmers from growing hemp. This seems silly considering that we are the world's leading consumer of hemp products, with total sales of food, health and beauty products exceeding $52 million in 2012, with 16.5 percent growth over 2011.

My home State of Oregon is home to some major manufacturers of hemp products, including Living Harvest, one of the largest hemp foods producers in the country. Business has been so brisk there that the Portland Business Journal recently rated them as one of the fastest- growing local companies.

There are similar success stories in many states. One company in North Carolina has begun incorporating hemp into building materials, reportedly making them both stronger and more environmentally friendly. Another company in California produces hemp-based fiberboard.

No country is better than the U.S. at developing, perfecting, and expanding markets for its products. As that market grows, it should be domestically-produced hemp that supplies its growth.

I would like to share with colleagues an editorial by one of the leading newspapers in my state, the Bend Bulletin. Here's what they had to say about legalizing industrial hemp: ``producers of hemp products in the United States are forced to import it. That denies American farmers the opportunity to compete in the market. It is like surrendering the competitive edge to China and Canada, where it can be grown legally.''

The Bend Bulletin's editorial went on to say: ``Legalizing industrial hemp does not have to be a slippery slope toward legalizing marijuana. It can be a start toward removing regulatory burdens limiting Oregon farmers from competing in the world market.''

The opportunities for American farmers and businesses are obvious here. Let's boost revenues for farmers and reduce the costs for businesses around the country that use this product. Let's put more people to work growing and processing an environmentally-friendly crop, with a ready market in the United States. For all the reasons I just described, I urge my colleagues to join Senators Paul, McConnell, and Merkley and me by cosponsoring this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Geothermal Expansion Production Act of 2013. This legislation is the same as a bill reported favorably by voice vote by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources during the 112th Congress. This bill has bi- partisan support, with Senators Murkowski, Begich, Crapo, Risch, and Merkley, joining me as original cosponsors. The legislation will help to encourage the production of geothermal energy from public lands.

With limited exceptions, current law requires that all Federal lands to be leased for the development of geothermal resources be offered on a competitive basis. BLM must hold a competitive lease sale every 2 years. If bids are not received for the lands offered, BLM must offer the lands on a noncompetitive basis for 2 years.

This legislation extends the authority for noncompetitive leasing in cases where a geothermal developer wants to gain access to Federal land immediately adjacent to land on which that developer has proven that there is a geothermal resource that will be developed. This will allow a geothermal project to expand onto adjacent land, if necessary, to increase the amount of geothermal energy it can develop. It will also add to the royalties and rents that the project pays to the U.S. Treasury.

The reason for this legislation is to allow the rapid expansion of already identified geothermal resources without the additional delays of competitive leasing and without opening up those adjacent properties to speculative bidders who have no interest in actually developing the resource, only in extracting as much money as they can from the existing geothermal developer.

The bill is not a give away at taxpayer expense. The bill limits the amount of adjacent Federal land that can be leased to 640 acres. This lease on Federal land must be acquired at fair-market value. The bill also requires the lease holder to pay the higher annual rental rate associated with competitive leases even though this new parcel is not being competitively leased. Again, the purpose of this higher rental rate is to ensure that taxpayers will get the revenue due to them from the use of their public lands.

I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, first of all, I ask unanimous consent to use oversized charts. I don't actually like to use oversized charts, but I cannot get all the information I need to present on one regular chart because I am looking at one subject area.

First of all, I wish to thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for bringing a budget to the floor. It is great that we have done it.

We know the outcome of this budget vote already. The final budget vote will not come until sometime in the middle of the night. But in that budget we are going to spend $47 trillion. There is a dispute between how we look at it and how our colleagues on the other side look at it, but there is at least $1 trillion in tax increases.

The new debt over the next 10 years is $7.3 trillion despite $1 trillion in tax hikes. The debt that has been added since the last budget passed this Senate is $5.5 trillion.

The spending increase above the projected growth over 10 years is $645 billion. The spending increase in this budget next year above today's budget level is $162 billion.

The deficit increase next year relative to the fiscal year 2014 projection by CBO is a $95 billion increase in our debt--we are not going the other way.

The growth rate in the Federal budget over 10 years is going to be 60 percent, and in the mandatory programs it is going to be 80 percent, so we are going to have the government growing at least 7 percent a year, continuing to grow at a rate faster than our economy, at a rate faster than personal income.

The net deficit reduction over that 10 years over what was projected may be $270 billion. The deficit reduction achieved through spending cuts will be zero in this budget--zero through spending cuts.

The deficit reduction through elimination of duplication, fraud, and waste in this budget is zero.

The date this budget balances is never.

I am bringing these charts to the floor because I want the American people to know how we are not doing our job. We are going to get a vote on a lot of these things, I have told my colleagues. I haven't been allowed to offer a lot of these amendments on bills that have come to the floor, so we are going to vote on them tonight and into the early hours tomorrow morning. The reason it is important for us to vote on them is because the American people need to know whether or not we are going to act on them. Let me start to go through some of the programs and see if it matches any type of common sense that anybody in America might have about how we could go about helping American citizens.

Three years ago we forced the GAO to do a duplication study of the whole Federal Government. We are going to get that last report about 1\1/2\ weeks from now. They will have looked at the whole Federal Government. This is just the data based on the first two reports. Let me just go through it rather quickly so my colleagues can see.

We have 15 unmanned aircraft programs, 5 agencies, $37 billion a year. Why do we have 15 of them? Does that make sense to anybody?

We have domestic food programs, 18 different programs, 3 different agencies, and we are spending $62 billion.

We have 21 different homeless programs--21 different homeless programs. It is great that it is only one through one agency. Why do we have 21 separate programs? Each one of these programs has a bureaucracy and office staff and overhead and administration. Why not have one or two?

Transportation services for transportation-disadvantaged persons: 80 separate, different, distinctly designed programs in 80 different agencies. Why not in the transportation agency alone? Why not run it out of the department it should be run through?

Job training and employment, 47 programs for the able-bodied, 9 different agencies, and it is actually $18.9 billion. We have actually done all the oversight on this. In Oklahoma, we have 17 federally-run job training programs in a city that has less than 15,000 people and has 400 people unemployed, 17 separate offices run by the Federal Government.

Teacher quality, 82 separate teacher training and quality programs, not run within the Department of Education but run within the Department of Education and nine other agencies. How does that fit? When we are in a time when we are trying to make hard decisions to protect the future of this country and a fiscal balance, why won't we address this? None of this stuff has been addressed. This has been known for 2 years. None of it is in the budget. It is not even in the House budget.

Food safety, 30 different programs, 15 different agencies, $1.6 billion. Do people realize if we buy a cheese pizza at the grocery store it is controlled by the Department of Agriculture, but if somebody buys a pepperoni pizza at the grocery store it is controlled by the FDA? Does that make sense to anybody? Why would we continue to be stupid? And we are the ones being stupid because we will not address these issues.

Military and veterans health services, we have four agencies running that. I would think we would want the VA to run that, not the VA plus three other agencies.

Economic development, we have 80 programs, 4 different agencies, and $6.5 billion a year.

U.S.-Mexican border region water needs, all right, we have Arizona on that border, we have Texas on that border, and we have California on that border. We have seven different agencies that control that. Why? Why would we do that?

Financial literacy programs, I would make the point that we are not very good in financial literacy within the Federal Government because all one has to do is look at our budget. There are 13 different agencies, 15 programs, plus the new Financial Consumer Protection Board is going to create another one--another one. We are spending $30 million a year on that.

Green buildings, 94 different programs, 11 different agencies, spending $1 billion a year.

Housing assistance, 160 different programs, 20 agencies--20 Federal Government agencies--spending $170 billion a year the overhead that is associated with all of this, the duplication that is associated with it, the complications, the paperwork.

Department of Justice grant programs, 253 of them: They are within the Department of Justice, but they are run through 10 other Federal agencies, not the Department of Justice.

Diesel emissions, 14 different programs, 3 different agencies. Why three? Why do we have to interact with three different agencies to have our diesel emissions controlled, and why are there 14 different programs?

Early learning and child care, 50 programs, 9 agencies, $16 billion.

Surface transportation, 55 programs, 5 agencies, $43 billion.

Support for entrepreneurs, 53 programs, 4 different agencies. We have small business, but guess what. We have one at Agriculture, we have one at Treasury, we have one somewhere else I can't remember; $2.6 billion.

Science, technology, education and math, we all agree it is important. The Pentagon has over 100 programs. The Pentagon itself has over 100 programs. Then we have another 105 or so programs spread across the rest of the agencies. Thirteen different agencies have a science, technology, engineering program. Why is that not within the Department of Education?

As I finish this, I will not go to the next chart just on the basis of time.

I outlined a whole bunch of different programs, and not one of them has a metric on it that says we are successful or unsuccessful--not one of them. So even the agencies that have these multiple programs, running across multiple agencies, have no endpoint to say: Are you doing anything?

What we have discovered on job training is we are real good in job training with Federal programs of employing people in job training. We are terrible in terms of giving them a life skill that will give them a lifetime work capability.

Let me take a short time to show some examples. Looking at this chart, we can see why we have such big charts.

Here are the Federal preschool and daycare programs. So if someone wants to provide that to somebody, look at the maze of bureaucracy they have to go through just to qualify.

The pink areas on this chart show the different departments that run them. The blue areas are the subagencies created out of the green ones. So we can see, in Federal preschool and daycare, we have the General Services Administration, that has four programs; we have the Department of Agriculture, that has this multitude of programs. But even if you have it at the Department of Agriculture, you cannot do anything because you have to talk to the Department of Education too, because they are interrelated in how they are controlled.

Early learning. The Justice Department has a multitude of programs. The Department of Health and Human Services has a multitude of programs. We even have a tax expenditure program for childcare and early learning. The Department of Labor has their own.

We can see what has happened to us is we have not done the oversight, the work to eliminate the problems that are causing us to spend at least $200 billion more per year than we need to spend.

Here are the Federal programs for surface transportation and infrastructure. We can see why this is so big. Here is the Federal Highway Administration and here are all their subprograms for it. Then over here is the Office of the Secretary. Then we have the Federal Railroad Administration; we have the Maritime Administration; we have the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. If you are a State transportation director, you have to meet the bureaucratic requirements of every one of these programs.

I talked about science, technology, engineering, and math. Look at what we have. What we have is a maze where nobody in the government knows what the other agency is doing. Nobody knows what somebody over here in the Mickey Leland Energy Fellowship funding is doing compared with the New Era Rural Technology Competitive Grants Program.

Here is the other thing we have found as we have gone through all these programs: We have people who apply for a grant and get it from one of these programs and then turn around and go over and apply for the same grant from another program.

It is easy to see, when we continue to see multiple programs--here, even to get efficient in our Federal fleet, we have 5 different programs, 20 different agencies, just to try to get fuel efficiency within the Federal Government. We started out with electronic health records systems for veterans and the military. We have 10 different programs within that--not 1 program, not 2, but 10.

Just one other. Here is a chart with green buildings. We listed that: a multitude of agencies, a multitude of programs. Every department in the Federal Government has a green building

initiative separate and apart from a central area where it ought to be and probably associated with the National Institute of Standards and Technology. That ought to be who is running it, but it is not.

We have all these things. All these require rules for you to comply with if you are going to get a building permit or you are going to have any Federal contracts. It makes no sense.

I will end.

Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Nobody in their right mind will agree that what we are doing is smart, efficient, effective, and associated with common sense. But yet when it comes to doing the hard work of oversight and eliminating these duplications, nobody in the Senate wants to do the hard work of eliminating them. A conservative estimate is that we send out $670 billion worth of grants a year. A conservative estimate is that $200 billion of that is totally wasted, and we are sitting here squabbling about raising taxes. This budget raises $1 trillion over 10 years. If we would do our hard work in terms of

Mr. President, there is so much distraction in the Senate I cannot talk.

If we would simply do our job, we would not have to have tax increases, we would not have to have spending cuts that will gut our military, although I can show a lot of waste in the military too, to the tune of $50 billion a year. But if we would just do our job and actually look in detail--the way GAO has recommended and the way Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has oversighted through the years, thanks to the leadership of Lieberman, Collins, Carper, and those who preceded them--what we will see is we have all this research, we have all this knowledge, we have all this stuff we know we can do, but we have no leadership in the Senate to get it done, and we bring a budget forward that perpetuates everything I just showed.

There is no mandate for every committee to eliminate total duplication in this budget. There is no mandate in this budget to consolidate like programs and eliminate cross-agency interference and duplication. There is no mandate in this budget that every grant program ought to have a metric on it to see if it actually accomplishes something. There is no metric in this budget to give the agencies the power and the resources to actually administer the grants effectively so we know what they are doing--none of that. This is all ignored.

As long as we say the only problem is saving Medicare and saving Social Security and saving the Defense Department, we are going to continue to waste $200 billion a year. I do not know what it is. I do not know if it is that I am not an effective communicator or if people have other priorities. But our grandchildren are totally dependent upon us eliminating so much stupidity. Yet nobody--the Appropriations Committees do not want to. Most of the authorizing committees do not want to. They will not do the hard work of eliminating the duplication.

I did not show the housing. I showed the total amount we spend. Do you realize we had paid a housing administrator in Oklahoma for 2 years in a town that had no homes. Picher, OK--we cleaned it out because of lead contamination. But we kept paying the housing administrator for Picher for 2 years--until I found it. I said: Why are we paying this guy? There are no homes.

Those little things, multiplied by a billion times throughout government programs, happen every day, and then we tell Americans we are going to raise your taxes because we will not do the hard work of oversight. We deny our oath when we do that, but we also deny the best tendencies and the tradition of this country. We can do a whole lot more with a whole lot less money if we would take care of this problem. But leadership is lacking on doing it.

As long as we have our eye on the ball of saving Medicare and saving Social Security and do not have our eye on the ball of the things that are spending money that we are getting no value for--or very limited value--we are going to continue to be in trouble financially as a country, even if we do save Medicare and Social Security.

Every dollar the American taxpayer pays into this country should be precious to us. Our foreign aid budget, we never talk about it. Our foreign policy has not been reauthorized for years. There has not been a full-time inspector general in the State Department in 6 years. We have seven open spots for inspectors general to actually look at this stuff and to advise us and advise the agencies.

We are failing to do our job. My only wish for my colleagues is to get informed, and if they are on a committee, they do not have to solve it the way I solve it, but just solve it. It makes no sense to continue to duplicate things.

As a matter of fact, in job training, here is what GAO said: Of the 47 job training programs for nondisabled people--we have another 53 for the disabled--of the 47 all but 3 do exactly the same thing.

Either GAO is lying or they are not. If they are not lying, why wouldn't we, in the next 2 months in this place, fix those programs to make them where they are actually giving real skills, for a real livelihood, to people who need real job training. There is no effort at all to do that.

The House just passed a bill, and it barely passed because every one of these squares that we show on any one of these charts has a constituency. In other words, they are dependent on money coming from the Federal Government. So even though it is not efficient and not effective, our colleagues do not want to irritate anybody getting that money because we are more interested in getting reelected than fixing the long-term problems of our country.

All you have to do is go to our Web site, coburn.senate.gov, and you will need a strong anti-emetic for the rest of the week if you read the waste and fraud and abuse and thievery that is going on with Federal Government programs. This budget does not address any of that waste.

Do you realize $200 billion out of $670 billion is $2 trillion over the next 10 years. If we just fixed that, it would help pull us out of the big hole. That is $2 trillion that has a very low economic multiplier in our economy versus $2 trillion that might have a bit.

I will end on this last point: Last year we gave out $4 billion to foreign countries that own more than $100 billion of our debt. Ask the typical American--we are borrowing money from China, and we are giving them foreign aid. They own $850 billion of our debt. Why would we do that? We are in debt, we are scrambling, we are borrowing $40 million a minute, and we are taking the money we are borrowing from China and turning around and giving it back to them in foreign aid. Why would we do that? It just shows how out of control all the processes are in Washington because we fail to be informed and hold the administration-- whether it is a Bush administration or an Obama administration, all of them are guilty. The reason they are guilty is because we are not raising the question.

I will tell my colleagues, they are going to get a vote on a lot of this stuff. A lot of my amendments have bipartisan support. But we are going to vote. They get to vote on whether they think we ought to eliminate duplication. They are going to have 17 separate votes on that. I am going to try to wind those into two votes. Vote against fixing it and then go home and tell Americans you want to raise their taxes $1 trillion, and you do not want to eliminate the stupidity going on in Washington.

I thank the chairman and the ranking member for the time.

Would the Senator, through the Chair, take a question? Does the Senator know the number of agencies in the Federal Government that actually know how many programs they have in their agency?

There is one agency in the Federal Government that knows all its programs. Only one. The Department of Education. They actually publish it every year. They actually have done a great job. I compliment them. Not one other Federal agency actually knows all of the programs that run under their auspices.

My colleagues might want to hear the other side of the story. My amendment reverses $4.6 billion that was taken from rural hospitals all across this country and given to two States. Every Member's rural hospitals lose money based on the earmark placed in the Affordable Care Act. All this does is reverse that.

There is nothing in the amendment by the Senator from New Jersey about wage neutrality, which is the whole problem in the first place. The cosponsors, I am sure, of the two States have markedly benefited at the expense of every other rural hospital across this country.

A vote for the Menendez amendment keeps us in line to continue to take $4.6 billion over the next 10 years out of rural hospitals. If Senators vote for my amendment, we go back to a fair distribution for the rural hospital payments.

Mr. President, there are no tricks in this. All we are trying to do is reverse what was done inappropriately.

There is no question we need to do some adjustment on wages. That is for another time when we actually try to save Medicare.

This amendment requires all States but two over 10 years to increase the payments to rural hospitals back to what they would have been had the amendment by Senator Kerry in the Affordable Care Act not been there. So that is the whole purpose, to bring us back to where we were.

I ask to call up amendment No. 409.

Mr. President, if there is no opposition, nobody on my side wishes to speak.

Mr. President, I rise today for the fourth time to introduce or reintroduce legislation to settle the outstanding land claims of the Tlingit and Haida Native people, the first people of Southeast Alaska. I first introduced this legislation to speed up the conveyance of lands to the Sealaska Native Regional Corporation in 2008. Native residents of Southeast Alaska in 1971 were promised lands to settle their aboriginal land claims to all of Southeast Alaska. Under the motto that nothing of worth comes easy, I hope that the compromise bill I introduce today with my colleague from Alaska Senator Begich will finally settle those claims early in the 113th Congress, capping nearly six years of congressional negotiation and review on this issue.

The newly revised bill establishes where and how Sealaska may select the remaining 70,075 acres of land the Bureau of Land Management now says it is entitled to receive under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, ANCSA. In all, Sealaska, the regional corporation representing some 20,000 Alaska Natives, more than a fifth of all Native residents in Alaska, will receive about 68,400 acres of land for timber development, about 1,099 acres for other economic development such as hydroelectric generation, marine hydrokinetic activity and future tourism development near Yakutat, Kake and Hydaburg, and 490 acres that Sealaska can apply for to gain an additional 76 cemetery and historical places.

The bill provides a balance of old-growth and second-growth timber, allowing Sealaska's timber business to transition to second-growth harvesting. To address local concerns, the new bill does not contain some 26,000 acres of selections on northern Prince of Wales Island. This version of the bill also eliminates more lands near Kassa Inlet and Mabel Bay near Keete on Prince of Wales Island to meet wildlife concerns, buffer key fisheries and anchorage areas for fishermen, and revises selection areas to address the Forest Service's desire to retain more lands that will aid its young-growth timber transition strategy in the Tongass National Forest.

Frankly, it has taken years of frustrating talks and negotiations to reach this point. This bill contains more than 175 changes since the 2008 version, all designed to make the bill acceptable to all Americans. While the odds are that it still won't make absolutely everyone happy, the bill does address all of the major concerns voiced with the Sealaska bill during nearly a half dozen congressional hearings, 22 town hall meetings, and in hundreds of letters and media comments. It gives Sealaska its ANCSA selections, while it provides unprecedented public access to the lands Sealaska will be receiving, and meets the valid concerns of small communities, fishermen and timber workers and protects their industries while fully protecting the environment.

It is a compromise. Clearly there are provisions in the bill that I wish were different, but on balance, it is a fair solution to a most difficult matter that has been dragging on for more than four decades. It is certainly a balanced solution that allows Sealaska to finally take title to the last 70,000 acres it was promised by the land claims settlement--lands largely to be used for economic development in a region where unemployment often hits 25 percent--while at the same time protecting more than twice as many acres for environmental and fisheries protection in Southeast Alaska, an area roughly the size of South Carolina. The bill does the latter by creating 152,000 acres of new conservation habitat areas in the region in eight tracts.

The revised bill also requires Sealaska, by a conservation easement, to protect three major salmon spawning systems on lands it is gaining by imposing a 100-foot no-cut buffer, specifically, along the main stem of Trout Creek on Koscuisko Island, along Old Tom Creek at Polk Inlet and along Karheen and Tuxekan Creeks on Tuxekan Island. The State Forest Practices Act and buffer rules will govern the management of all other streams on state lands inside the new Sealaska selections.

The bill continues and strengthens all public access provisions contained in ANCSA. The bill contains a provision that guarantees public access to Sealaska's economic land selections for recreation, hunting and fishing both sport and subsistence, allowing closures only to protect public safety, to safeguard cultural properties, to promote educational efforts or to protect against environmental damage, while allowing the public to legally challenge any such closures. It also protects the rights of existing guides and tour operators to continue operations automatically on Sealaska lands for portions of two permit terms, or up to 20 years.

The revised bill also reduces the size of selection areas on Koscuisko and Tuxekan Islands to meet local community concerns, to protect, subsurface, karst formations, to protect old-growth habitat areas for sensitive species, and to protect anchorages for fishermen. The revised bill rearranges selection areas at 12 Mile Arm and Polk Inlet to protect Forest Service planning, facilities and research facilities, and increases the size of selection areas at Calder and the Cleveland Peninsula to offset the acreage reductions.

Sealaska, through this bill, will give up its existing selection rights to 327,000 acres of the Tongass National Forest, allowing that timber to return to full Forest Service planning control, and the bill will result in Sealaska selecting about 25,000 fewer acres of old- growth timber, traditionally the most sought after lands in the forest and about 50,000 fewer acres of inventoried road less lands than might have happened should Sealaska have stayed inside their original selection boundaries, lands that were designated for selection by the corporation in 1976. The problem with those lands, the reason why this bill is so important for the public good, is that if Sealaska had to select from those lands it would have had to select timber lands in the Situk River Valley, the home to the nation's foremost steelhead stream. It would have had to select lands in the Craig municipal watershed, key fisheries habitat near Hoonah and Hydaburg and some 64,000 acres of Old-Growth Habitat Reserves, four times more such land than the corporation is taking by this bill. Those selections would have been bad for the commercial and sport fishing industries, for tourism, and for the environment. Equally important from Sealaska's viewpoint, 44 percent of the lands it had to select from by the 1976 selection areas were located under water bodies, making the selection rights worthless.

Sealaska may use part of its entitlement to select 76 cemetery sites and historical places, but to address concerns from some stakeholders, the bill reduces the number and acreage of cemetery sites and historical places that Sealaska can file to receive. Acreage available to Sealaska was reduced more than six fold, from 3,600 acres in the original 2008 bill to a maximum of 490 acres. The total number of sites was reduced from 206 in the original bill and all parks and wilderness lands were placed off limits.

This bill also confirms that all cemetery sites and historical places will have to pass the existing historical review process before they can be conveyed. The bill, again, prohibits the selection of cemetery sites and historical places inside parks and conservation system units. Sealaska will be required to consult with local tribes before applying for conveyance of any sites, and the bill prohibits the transfer of such sites to third parties and protects them from loss of Native ownership in the event of any future financial claims against Sealaska--the lands reverting to the Federal Government in the event of financial issues. The bill also requires that Sealaska provide a 25- foot easement to allow anyone to sport fish along any salmon stream that crosses such new sites.

The bill allows Sealaska to receive nine small parcels of land that Sealaska may use to help spur cultural tourism, ecotourism, or, in two cases, renewable energy development near the communities of Yakutat, Kake, and Hydaburg. The number of sites, totaling 1,099 acres, is vastly reduced, considering more than 50 sites totaling 5,000 acres had been considered in earlier versions of the legislation. The small parcels all are within or near the so-called 10 selection boxes established by a 1976 amendment to ANCSA. Five sites are in the Yakutat area, where Sealaska currently owns no land on behalf of its tribal member shareholders. The sites in the Yakutat area are at Crab Island, North Dolgoi Island, Cannon Beach, Chicago Harbor and Redfield Lake. Two sites are in the Kake area: Turnabout Island and East Payne Island. There is a hydro site at Lake Josephine on Prince of Wales I and and a final site for marine hydrokinetic development, ocean current energy, on the northern tip of Dall Island at Turn Point-Tlevak Narrows' revised bill removes all sites that drew concern from commercial fishermen, small tour operators, environmental groups or local communities in the Alaska Panhandle.

The compromise bill conveys three non-exclusive access easements to Sealaska to use as traditional Native trade and migration routes in Southeast. The bill, as revised, renames the routes to honor Alaska's Tlingit and Haida Indians and the history of the region and provides generally for public access. The Yakutat to Dry Bay trail will be renamed ``Neix naax aan flax'' meaning, The Inside Passage; the Bay of Pillars to Port Camden trail will be renamed the ``Yakwdeiyl'' trail, meaning the Canoe Road; and the Portage Bay to Duncan Canal trail will be renamed ``Lingit Deiyl,'' meaning the People's Road.

The bill requires Sealaska to share use of all forest roads with the Forest Service and others, meaning that the government retains the right to use the roads to access other timber sales, as do the public. The bill maintains all of the access provisions granted by ANCSA and includes provisions to make access rights workable for all.

It has taken years of really listening to the requests about this bill and working through them one by one to find solutions, with the past nearly two years involved in frequent negotiations among the Forest Service, Democratic and Republican congressional staff, Sealaska, environmental groups and other interest groups such as commercial fishermen and timber operators. This is truly a compromise piece of legislation. But it finally gets Sealaska its lands, protects fisheries and wildlife, and helps maintain a timber industry in Southeast Alaska.

This compromise, the direct result of years of negotiation, has a host of good points. It will prevent ``high-grading'' of timber' the practice where companies cut only the best timber lands, leaving lesser quality lands behind. Sealaska's conveyances in the nine commercial tracts called for in this bill: Calder, Election Creek, Cleveland Peninsula, 12-Mile Arm, Tuexkan Island, Polk and MacKenzie Inlets, Koscuisko Island, Keete, and Kuiu Island include only about 20,700 acres of large old-growth trees just 3.8 percent of the forest's 537,451 acres of such trees. Already 437,000 acres of large old-growth trees, 81 percent, are protected in conservation areas within the 19.6- million-acre national forest.

The bill likely will save the government money. In additional to making Sealaska give up some $2 million of escrowed funds, the bill means Sealaska, by getting about 25,000 acres of less valuable second- growth, based on current timber prices, could be foregoing more than $10 million of timber value, compared to if it had received all old- growth trees--old-growth providing the most valuable habitat for species in the forest like Sitka black-tailed deer, the Queen Charlotte goshawk and wolves.

For Alaskans, the bill makes sure that more than 99 percent of the lands Sealaska will be receiving are open for public access. That is the opposite of what could happen if this bill does not pass, as then Sealaska would be free to prevent the public from trespassing across their new lands, like all other private land owners can post their properties.

The changes between this version and previous versions of the measure are far too many to list here. But briefly this bill reduces the number and acreage of small parcels for economic diversification, once called ``Future'' sites. It reduces the number of new Native cemetery and historical places that Sealaska could select, allowing only such sites outside national parks or wilderness to be selected. The bill increases public access provisions, prevents Sealaska from gaining potential federal grants for management of the cemetery sites, removes a host of questionable land selections on environmental grounds and revises timber lands to protect subsistence hunting areas and resource gathering spots.

As I say, I introduce this bill in a bipartisan manner with my Alaska colleague, Senator Mark Begich again as a co-sponsor. It is a reasonable bill and I hope it finally can pass both bodies of Congress, it passing the House of Representatives in a somewhat different form in 2012 and become law. Southeast Alaska's Natives, which while the largest group of Natives in Alaska in 1971, received the third smallest land entitlement in the claims act 42 years ago. That was mostly because much of the rest of the forest at the time was already dedicated to long-term timber sale contracts. Now that those contracts have been voided, it is only just and equitable that Alaska's first inhabitants get a chance to select a little more of the land first settled by their ancestors.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation to clarify Federal mining law and remedy a problem that has arisen from the extension process for ``small'' miner mineral claims.

Under revisions to the Federal Mining Law of 1872, 30 U.S.C. 28(f), holders of unpatented mineral claims must pay a claim maintenance fee originally set at $100 per claim by a deadline, set by regulation, of September 1st each year. Since 2004 that fee has risen. But Congress also has provided a claim maintenance fee waiver for ``small'' miners, those who hold 10 or fewer claims, that they do not have to submit the fee, but that they must file to renew their claims and submit an affidavit of annual labor, work conducted on the claim, each year, certifying that they had performed more than $100 of work on the claim in the preceding year, 30 U.S.C. 28f(d)(1). The waiver provision further states: ``If a small miner waiver application is determined to be defective for any reason, the claimant shall have a period of 60 days after receipt of written notification of the defect or defects by the Bureau of Land Management to: cure such defect or defects or pay the $100 claim maintenance fee due for such a period.''

Since past revisions of the law, there have been a series of incidents where miners have argued that they submitted their applications and affidavits of annual labor in a timely manner, but due to clerical error by BLM staff, mailing delays or for unexplained reasons, the applications or documents were not recorded as having been received in a timely fashion. In that case BLM has terminated the claims, deeming them null and void. While mining claim holders have argued that the law provides them time to cure claim defects, BLM has argued that the cure only applies when applications or fees have been received in a timely manner. Thus, there is no administrative remedy for miners who believe that clerical errors by BLM or mail issues resulted in loss or the late recording of claim extension applications and paperwork.

There have been a number of cases where Congress has been asked to override BLM determinations and reinstate mining claims simply because of the disputes over whether the claims had been filed in a timely manner. Congress in 2003 reinstated such claims in a previous Alaska case. Claims in two other incidents were reinstated following a U.S. District Court case in the 10th Circuit first in 2009 in the case of Miller v. United States and secondly earlier this year in a second Alaska case. Legislation to correct the provision to prevent this problem in the future actually cleared the Senate in 2007, but did not ultimately become law.

In the past two Congresses I have introduced legislation intended to short circuit continued litigation and pleas for claim reinstatement by clarifying the intent of Congress that miners do have to be informed that their claims are in jeopardy of being voided and given 60 days notice to cure defects, including giving them time to submit their applications and to submit affidavits of annual labor, should their submittals not be received and processed by BLM officials on time. If all defects are not cured within 60 days, the obvious intent of Congress in passing the original act, then claims still are subject to voidance. But this administration has opposed the legislation arguing that it would be too expensive to notify all small miners who fail to file their small miner waiver documents on time and giving them time to solve the defect prior to the loss of their claims. It has even been suggested that giving small miners simple due process would just encourage miners to ignore the deadline for filing for their fee waivers.

I find the cost complaint unpersuasive. Many Federal departments and agencies, the Federal Communication Commission, as one example, routinely sends out notices on permit and license applications. The FCC sends out hundreds of thousands of such notices to Americans who have small radio licenses expiring yearly, warning them that they need to file applications for license renewal. The Bureau of Land Management certainly should be able to afford a few hundred 50-cent stamps to perform a similar service. Given the value of claims placed at risk and the bother, inconvenience and fear of loss of claims, it is highly unlikely that miners would avoid filing their waiver paperwork on time just because a notification process was clearly in place before claims could be terminated.

So today I reintroduce legislation to solve the notification issue and include language to remedy an injustice to one of my constituents who has lost his rights to nine mineral claims on the Kenai Peninsula, near Hope, Alaska. The transition language would reinstate claims for Mr. John Trautner, who has lost title to claims that he had held from 1982 to 2004. Mr. Trautner suffered this loss even though he had a consistent record of having paid the annual labor assessment fee for the previous 22 years. The local BLM office did have a time-date- stamped record that the maintenance fee waiver certification form had been filed weeks before the deadline but just not a record that the affidavit of annual labor had arrived when he dropped it office in the Anchorage office at the same time.

This legislation, supported in the past by the Alaska Miners Association, will clarify that small miners do have a right to simple due process to be able to have a chance to file their small miner waiver applications in the event of mistakes in processing, rather than immediately lose their rights to patented mining claims without effective appeal or recourse. I appreciate that the Justice Department and BLM Jan. 22, 2013 reinstated claims owned by Alaskans Don and Judy Mullikins of Nome, finally reversing a decision that they should lose their claims following a 2009 application filing incident. But the legal expense, bother and uncertainty that the Mullikins went through in getting their claims reinstated are clear reasons why Congress should clarify past changes to the small miner waiver provision and permit claims to be retained in the event of clerical errors or honest mistakes by claim holders in missing the deadline for filings. Such a change would simply provide justice for small miners.