Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business until 5 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, I am here today on the floor again to ask that Senate Republicans stop blocking the next step in regular order and allow us to move to a bipartisan budget conference with the House of Representatives. We have waited long enough. In fact, we have now waited 54 days, and it is time to get to work on a bipartisan budget agreement.

The Senate Democrats see no reason for delay. We are very proud of our budget, which puts forward a strong, fair vision for getting Americans back to work, tackling our long-term debt and deficit challenges, and laying a strong foundation for the middle class in the future. It seems that some of our Republican colleagues in the Senate and House would rather wait now until the next crisis and see if they can extract political concessions with the clock ticking--or maybe they don't want to air the details of the unpopular House budget.

Either way, there is no excuse for putting the American people through another round of partisan brinkmanship. We have already seen that that hurts our economy, and it causes Americans to question whether their government is working for them.

Yesterday the House Republicans met to talk about what they are going to demand in exchange for not tanking our economy. Apparently they are considering a ``laundry list,'' including repealing ObamaCare--which the House will vote on, by the way, for the 37th time today--and restrictions on women's health choices.

House Republicans' practice of leveraging crises for their own gain died with the Boehner rule, and no amount of wishing is going to bring it back. House Republicans may think brinkmanship helps them win political fights, but it does not help the American families and communities we are here to serve.

I urge our Republican colleagues in the Senate to take a step toward a responsible bipartisan budget agreement and a step away from governing by crisis.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 33, H. Con. Res. 25; that the amendment which is at the desk, the text of S. Con. Res. 8, the budget resolution passed by the Senate, be inserted in lieu thereof; that H. Con. Res. 25, as amended, be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, all with no intervening action or debate.

Reserving the right to object, the Senator's request is asking to disregard what the Senate did on those days--54 days ago--to go through over 100 amendments and defeat those amendments time and time again; to go to conference--not behind closed doors, I would add. A conference committee is a committee that is out in the public.

What is happening right now is closed-door agreements. What we are asking for is an open process where we are allowed to take the Senate- passed budget and the House-passed budget, go to conference, and find out where we can agree so we can put this behind us.

I object to the Senator's request and ask again for our unanimous consent request to move to budget conference, as we do in regular order, which is what the Republicans have been demanding for a very long time.

Madam President, I object. I wish to respond to the Senator.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, what the

Senator is requesting us to do is to take up the House-passed budget. Remember, we have passed a Senate budget here. We had 50 hours of debate, over 100 amendments were offered. We voted on all of them way into the wee hours, 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning, as everyone here will rightly remember. He is asking us to disregard all that action in the Senate, take up the House bill and have 50 hours more of debate, unlimited amendments, sitting here for weeks at a time again to go through all the amendments.

Madam President, that is a waste of taxpayer money and it is a waste of our time. We have done that work. It is time to go to conference.

Therefore, I object.

Madam President, I rise to address the Water Resources Development Act that we passed today.

This important legislation authorizes Army Corp of Engineers projects that provide flood control, ensure navigation to get our goods to market, and help restore our ecosystems and environment. One component of this bill deals with the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.

Shippers pay a Harbor Maintenance Tax, which goes into the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and is then appropriated for operations and maintenance at ports throughout our country.

Now, although this legislation does not address the Harbor Maintenance Tax, I want to take a moment to talk about it. Because unfortunately, this policy is encouraging cargo diversion from our ports.

A Federal Maritime Commission report released last year, which I requested with Senator Cantwell, indicated that cargo coming into U.S. ports cost, on average, an additional $109 due to the Harbor Maintenance Tax.

I find this report extremely troubling.

While this bill does not address the tax, it does address the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. The bill sets goals for additional expenditures from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, and it includes a provision that I worked on closely with Chairman Boxer and Senator Cantwell.

This provision will allow our ports to be more competitive internationally by providing payments to shippers entering or transporting cargo through an eligible donor port--one that takes in significantly more in Harbor Maintenance Taxes than it receives back for operations and maintenance, like the Port of Seattle or the Port of Tacoma.

It is meant to reduce cargo diversion from United States ports to international ports, but not to induce cargo diversion within the United States.

I appreciate the hard work by Chairman Boxer to include this provision in the manager's amendment and to keep the provision intact throughout consideration of the Water Resources Development Act.

This provision is a step in the right direction.

But we can do more, and we must.

That is why I'm working on legislation that will comprehensively reform the Harbor Maintenance Tax and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.

It will ensure full spend out of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and ensure all cargo is treated equally as it moves through the supply chain.

My goals are to increase our international competitiveness, ensure we are getting our goods to market, and provide good, family-wage jobs.

I have been working with ports in Washington state and the Northwest, and I plan to introduce this legislation soon.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on these important issues.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Cantwell and Chairman Baucus for coming down here today to discuss port competitiveness, infrastructure, and American jobs, issues which are close to my heart. I believe these are important issues to be addressed, which is why I have been working on this issue throughout my Senate tenure and why Senator Cantwell and I introduced the U.S. Port Opportunity and Revitalizing Trade Act in 2002.

We appreciate that the legislation before us today, the Water Resources Development Act, works to improve expenditures from the harbor maintenance trust fund and that it includes provisions we championed to begin to address the competitive issues our ports face. I would like to say thank you to Chairwoman Boxer, who included a provision in the managers' amendment that would authorize payments to ``donor'' ports those ports that contribute a significant amount of funds, but receive less than 25 percent of the benefit that can be used to offset the cost of the HMT being paid by shippers.

The language in the managers' amendment does not mean that the job is done. We do not believe this language will fully correct the challenges U.S. ports face now and will continue to face in the future. Rather, we believe this is an interim solution that will help until we can work together to find a larger, more permanent solution addressing cargo diversion. Senator Cantwell and I look forward to working with the Chairman Baucus to address comprehensive reform of the harbor maintenance tax.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minute as in morning business, and following me, the Senator from Rhode Island will speak for 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Delaware who spoke about the fact that we are

now 53 days since passing the Senate budget. We are pushing very hard as Democrats to keep this process moving and get our budget to a conference committee. I appreciate his coming out and explaining why that is so important. I agree with him.

We believe with all the urgent challenges we face today, there is every reason to get to work right away on a bipartisan budget deal. There is no reason to delay this until the next crisis. But we have come out here now seven times and asked for consent to go to conference to work on the budget with the House, and seven times the Senate Republicans have stood and said, no, we do not want to go to work on the budget.

Given how much Senate Republicans have talked about regular order over the last several years, we are rather surprised on this side that they are now resisting this very important next step in this bipartisan negotiation. By the way, it is not just Democrats who are saying they want to go to conference. There are quite a few Senate Republicans who are surprised, as we are, that they are not allowing us to go.

My colleague Senator McCain said blocking conference is ``incomprehensible'' and ``insane.'' Senator Corker said that to ``keep from appointing conferees is not consistent.'' Senator Flake said he ``would like to see a conference now.''

I sincerely hope the Republican leaders in the Senate will listen to the Members of their own party, because we have a lot of problems to solve and we have to get started. Our children today, young adults, need a world-class education to succeed in the global economy they are entering. Many of them are graduating in the next several weeks. Too many Americans are out of work yet or still underemployed. Our national infrastructure is quickly becoming an obstacle rather than an asset to our competitiveness.

We need to do more to responsibly tackle our long-term deficit and debt challenges and make our Tax Code work better for our middle class. The debate about all of those challenges couldn't be more important. We should start working toward a bipartisan budget deal that works for our families, our economy. We should do it as soon as possible and engage the American people in a thorough and responsible debate.

That is why I, frankly, was very disappointed to see that today, instead of meeting to discuss moving toward a bipartisan conference between the House and Senate, House Republicans are meeting to discuss what they will ask for in exchange for not tanking the economy a couple of months from now.

Instead of moving with us toward the middle and joining us at the table ready to compromise, they spent their afternoon debating what to write on a ransom note and saying if they don't get what they want, they are going to allow the United States to default. That is an unprecedented event that would devastate our entire economy.

I think a lot of families across our country are very concerned that House Republicans haven't learned any lessons at all from the past 2 years, and that we are looking at more brinkmanship, more governing by crisis, and more harm for our American families and our businesses.

House Republicans are even telling us they are willing to put foreign creditors before our seniors, our veterans, and our businesses and claiming that somehow this plan will protect the economy.

That is absurd. A default is a default. If the Federal Government pays its foreign creditors--but defaults on its obligations to our families and our communities--the results are going to be catastrophic. Rating agencies would rightly see that as a serious abdication of our responsibility. Our fragile economy would be seriously threatened, and people across the country would lose their faith again in our government's ability to function.

Fortunately, I hope and think it will not come to all of that. Republicans have been saying default would be a ``financial disaster'' for the global economy and ``you can't not raise the debt ceiling.'' A few months ago, Republicans acknowledged how dangerous it would be to play games with the debt limit and how politically damaging it would be to play politics with the potential economic calamity and dropped their demands.

What has changed since then? Why are Republicans once again issuing this empty threat that does nothing more than rattle the markets and increase uncertainty across our country. Maybe the House Republicans think since we won't hit the debt ceiling until later than we originally expected, there could be less pressure to get a deal and more opportunity for them to extract some kind of political concession.

That is exactly the wrong way to look at this because even if we know they are going to reverse course eventually, the Republican strategy of holding our economy hostage and creating this uncertainty again and trying to push us toward another crisis has terrible consequences. All of us remember the summer of 2011 when extreme elements in the Republican Party demanded economically damaging policies, leading to a downgrade of our Nation's credit.

Economic growth and job creation slowed to a halt, consumer confidence plummeted, and out of that summer came sequestration. That was a policy that was meant to serve only as a trigger and, in fact, was only implemented because Republicans were focused on protecting the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations from paying even a penny more in taxes rather than working with us on a deal to prevent sequester.

Now what do we have? Sequestration. It is forcing families and communities across the country to cope with layoffs and cuts to services they count on, things such as childcare and public safety. Yesterday, we learned that DOD civilian employees, many of whom are veterans, by the way, are going to be furloughed.

We have to replace sequestration. We need to do it with a balanced and responsible deficit reduction plan, but we also have to stop lurching from crisis to crisis that allows those kinds of policies to be enacted. There is absolutely no reason to double down on an approach that has those kinds of effects on the families and communities we serve and on those who bravely served our country.

Contrary to what we are now, unfortunately, hearing from the House, I believe with more time to reach a fair and bipartisan agreement we have all the more reason for us to move to a conference quickly and get a budget agreement. Let's get to work. Our country's challenges--rather than a looming artificial deadline or crisis--should guide this debate, and it shouldn't be controversial. There are responsible Senate leaders on both sides of the aisle who agree.

I hope Senate Republicans will listen to members of their own party who are calling for a conference and bring us one step closer to negotiating a bipartisan budget deal in a responsible way instead of insisting that we run down the clock.

I know there are factions in our government that believe compromise is a dirty word and that getting a deal will not be easy, but I continue to believe it can and needs to be done because alongside those who refuse to compromise there are responsible leaders who came here to show Americans that their government works. It would be deeply irresponsible for the House to continue delaying a conference and for Senate Republicans to continue to cover for them, especially if they are doing it for political reasons or to keep the negotiations out of the public eye or to, what I have heard, avoid taking a few tough votes.

I urge Republican colleagues to reconsider their approach. Join us in a budget conference ready to compromise and work with us toward a bipartisan deal the American people deserve.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 33, H. Con. Res. 25; that the amendment, which is at the desk, the text of S. Con. Res. 8, the budget resolution passed by the Senate, be inserted in lieu thereof; that H. Con. Res. 25, as amended, be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees of the Senate, all with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, what the Senator is asking is that we go back to what we had votes on throughout the entire budget debate way into the morning hours on the issues of reconciliation, on the issues of revenue that were all debated and voted on--some passed, some were defeated. We are not going to take those up again. We are going to go to conference with

the budget that was passed by the majority in the Senate and by the majority in the House, and those views will be represented in conference. We cannot get to that debate and that discussion without moving to conference, so I object to his unanimous consent and ask for consent on my request again.

Madam President, this is so challenging. It has now been 47 days since we passed our budget. Senate Democrats have now requested unanimous consent to move to conference--the next step--five times. We want to take the next step in this process. We want to move forward under regular order and continue this debate in an open and public way, but every time we try to take it to the next step, Senate Republicans stand and they say: No. I think this comes as a surprise to the American people. I think they are disappointed. I know I am. I think a lot of people, myself included, expected that after calling for regular order so consistently for so long, Republicans would be eager now to take the next step in the process. Some Republicans say they want to negotiate a framework behind closed doors before they agree on going to conference, but that is what a budget is. It is a framework that lays out our values and our priorities and helps us plan for our country's future. Why can't we discuss that framework in a formal, public conference, which is what we call regular order?

I am sure Republicans are not excited about the prospect of defending their extreme budget all over again in a public conference committee. We all know Americans are not interested in more tax breaks for the wealthiest, they are not interested in Medicare vouchers, but Republicans wrote that budget, they voted for it, they passed it, and they ought to be happy to defend it. I know Senate Democrats are happy to stand and talk about ours.

The American people now deserve to see those two visions. They need to see our visions side by side, contrasted with each other, and they need to see who is willing to compromise and who is not.

We have heard the House Republican leadership doesn't want the Senate to appoint conferees because they don't want to go to conference because they might have to take a lot of difficult votes in the House. I am sure my colleagues remember the vote-arama we had before we passed our budget. We considered over 100 amendments. We were here until 5 in the morning, the entire time voting on amendments, until every Senator who wanted to be heard to offer an amendment did and we had a very thorough and open debate and we voted a lot. So I don't think the American people are going to be very sympathetic to the argument that the Republicans don't want to go to conference because they are afraid the House has to take a few votes.

This is deeply disappointing to me. The Republicans are now running away from regular order. In fact, they are running right toward another crisis, and they are willing to take our American families and our economy along for the ride.

It should be noted the House Republicans have announced a new conference, but it is not a conference on a budget deal; it is a conference of their Republican Members to decide what they are going to demand in exchange for taking our economy over the debt ceiling. It is absurd, and it is not going to happen. We know because we went through this same thing the last time we approached the debt limit. Just a few months ago, Republicans realized how dangerous it would be to play games with the debt limit and how politically damaging it would be to play politics with potential economic calamity for our country, and they finally dropped their demands. The so-called Boehner rule died, and no amount of wishing by the tea party is going to bring that back.

The Republican strategy now of holding our economy hostage and trying to push us to another crisis is absolutely the wrong approach, and holding our budget conference hostage so they can get to that point is not going to be considered well by the American people.

Getting a deal is not going to be easy. Any one of us knows that. It is going to take compromise. But this constant lurching from crisis to crisis that the House is demanding and is strategizing around is not what the American public wants or deserves.

I am here to say Democrats are ready to take the next step. We need a negotiating party on the other side. They can bring all of their bills to conference and we can talk about it. We can come to a compromise. Compromise is not a dirty word. Oftentimes we don't hear it a lot around here. But I believe many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, frankly, want to return to regular order. They want to move away from these constant crises. I know that is what the American public wants. They want to see we can govern.

I urge those who are coming here time and time again, blocking us from getting to a point to debate our two different budgets and from getting to a compromise, to allow us to get the work of the American people done and allow us to go to conference.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

That is correct.

The Senator is correct.

The Senator is correct.

The Senator is stating it correctly.

And no revenue.

The Senator would be correct, and I would add one other thought. What he is now asking us to do is to go back and vote on votes we already took when we went through the budget process and amendments did not pass. So he is saying, my amendments didn't pass, but I am not going to let a conference happen unless I get my way.

We have a majority. We have a minority. We went through hundreds of amendments. Some of them passed and some of them did not. It is the process we go through.

Then we take what we passed--the House, by the way, passed a very different budget--we go to conference and resolve the differences. That is what a conference is. But if every Senator came out here and said on every bill we ever did we are not going to go to conference unless I get the amendment I lost on the floor, we would never do anything in this country. That is not how a democracy works.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I point out what the Senator requests is for us to redo the budget debate where those amendments were considered and defeated in the Senate, and it is now up to us to go to conference to work out our differences with the House. There is no need to go back through another 50 hours of debate and 100-plus amendments to be considered. This body needs to go to work. We have been told time and time again we need a budget, we need a solution. We do not need to manage by crisis. There is no need to relitigate the budget on this side. We need to go to conference and litigate our differences with the House Republicans.

I object to the Senator's request and urge we move to conference and allow the request of the Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner, to go forward.

Mr. President, I wish to thank my budget colleagues who are here with me today. They have spent many hours putting together a budget and coming to the floor with all of the Senate to work on over 100 amendments way into the middle of the night in order to get a budget passed. We are all here ready because we came to the Senate--to this Congress--to solve problems. We decided, as a committee and as a Democratic caucus, it is very important we move forward on a budget.

We want to solve this problem so we can get back to regular order so our country--businesses, communities, and everyone--knows where our priorities are and what path we are on so we can bring some certainty to this country again.

It is so disappointing to me that four times now the Republicans have objected to us now taking the necessary next step, which is to work together with our House colleagues, find a compromise, and move forward. We are working for certainty. It is disappointing to me that those on the other side of the aisle--and we all remember they spent month after month and had chart after chart on the floor telling us we had not passed a budget, we need to go to regular order--are now saying: No. No regular order, no budget, no process, no certainty, no conclusion to this very important problem on which we have all come together to work. This is disturbing for a number of reasons, and my colleagues have talked about it.

We have constituents at home--whether it is a business, a school, delivering Meals On Wheels, planning their military operations for the next year, as well as the agricultural industry--wondering what their plan is for the future. What they are being told--now for the fourth time in a row--by the Republicans in the Senate is: We are not going to give you any certainty. We like to live with uncertainty.

There is no doubt that moving to conference is not going to be easy; solving this problem is not going to be easy. I want our colleagues to know what I have consistently heard from the Democratic side is that we understand the word ``compromise.'' We know that in order to solve this huge problem, we have to come to the table and compromise and listen to the other side.

We cannot do this in the dead of night. We cannot do it with a couple of people sitting in a room. That has been done before, and it doesn't work. We need to have regular order, and we need to have this process out in the open. We need to have the American people hear what the different sides say, and then we are all going to have to take some tough votes.

I can assure the American people that on this side we understand what it means to take tough votes and we understand the word ``compromise'' and the need to get our country back on track.

As the Senator from Virginia said, we need to show the country that democracy can work. We are willing to take that step to make it work, and I urge our Republican colleagues to step forward and allow us to make that move. Do not object to us trying to solve problems because that is what is happening.

I urge our Republican colleagues--and the House as well--to move to conference so we can have a debate and discussion on this deeply urgent matter for our country.

I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Madam President, I just wish to talk for a moment. I have heard a lot from my constituents that they are very tired of the dysfunction in Washington, DC. They are tired of political gridlock that impacts their businesses, their children's schools, and their paychecks. After spending last week with families and businesses that are impacted by sequestration in my home State of Washington, I know this is especially true right now.

When I became chair of the Senate Budget Committee, I said I hoped Democrats and Republicans would be able to work together to end the cycle of governing from crisis to crisis and the attempts to negotiate budget policy through brinkmanship, which we have seen far too much of in recent years.

I believe this goal is just as important today--and is, in fact, more attainable--but we need Republicans to meet us at the table and proceed to conference under regular order.

We are at a unique moment in our debate about the country's fiscal and economic challenges. Following the 2 years that the bipartisan Budget Control Act took the place of a congressional budget, the Senate returned to regular order this year and we passed a budget resolution. The House has also passed their budget, and the President weighed in with a proposal for his path going forward.

We now have an opportunity to move through regular order to try to get a bipartisan budget agreement, and we should seize it.

Democrats and Republicans have different perspectives on a wide variety of issues. But just a few months ago, it seemed that Democrats and Republicans did agree on at least one thing: the budget debate should proceed through regular order.

Democrats chose to move forward with a budget resolution through committee and said that an open process through regular order was the best way to reach a bipartisan agreement. And Republicans agreed. They said once the Senate and the House passed budgets ``the work of conferencing must begin.'' They said a conference was--and I quote--the ``best vehicle'' for the budget debate ``because we're doing it in plain sight.'' They said we needed the open public debate that regular order requires.

In fact, Senator McConnell said Senate Democrats should ``return to regular order and transparency in the legislative process.'' The Obama administration has also said regular order is the way to proceed. But Senate Republicans have now blocked our efforts to move to conference, not once but twice.

Some Republicans said they want to negotiate a ``framework'' behind closed doors before going to conference. But that is what a budget is; it is a framework that lays out our values and our priorities and helps us plan for the country's future. I think that framework is exactly what we ought to be debating in a formal and public conference, and there is no reason to wait.

Now, I know this is not going to be easy. There are vast differences between the Senate and House budgets and the visions we each present. But I believe we will be most effective at resolving these differences if we have time for open debate and discussion and opportunities to identify common ground.

Waiting until the last minute is not a good option. The uncertainty that is caused in the lead-up to every manufactured crisis over the past 2 years has hurt our businesses, it has hurt our economy, and it is threatening our fragile economic recovery. It keeps us from planning and investing in our future, and it makes Americans question whether their government is capable of solving any problems that confront us.

I know--and we all know--there are extreme elements in our political system that think ``compromise'' is a dirty word. I know some Republicans think they do not have the political space to make a bipartisan deal until the very last minute of a crisis. But I believe many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle want to return to regular order and move us away from the constant crises.

I am hoping the voices of reason win because American families and our businesses expect us to do better than running down the clock.

So I urge my Republican colleagues to join us now in proceeding to conference through regular order, as they have said we should. That is the best way to reach a deal that is the best and most responsible path for our country to move forward on.

So, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 33, H. Con. Res. 25; that the amendment which is at the desk, the text of S. Con. Res. 8, the budget resolution passed by the Senate, be inserted in lieu thereof; that H. Con. Res. 25, as amended, be agreed to; the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, all with no intervening action or debate.

There is a UC before the Senate. If no one objects, I would be happy to answer a question.

The Senator from Louisiana is correct. The UC I am requesting simply takes us to conference so the House and the Senate Members can agree--Republicans and Democrats alike--to work toward a bipartisan solution.

The Senator is correct.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I will in a moment, we considered over 100 amendments on the Senate floor. All of those kinds of amendments were brought up, debated, and considered as part of the resolution, as we do on any debate. So there is no need to go back and redo all of our amendments again. So I object and ask simply again our UC to move forward to conference so we can discuss all of these issues in regular order.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana. I just have to say I am frustrated and shocked at the reaction of our Republican counterparts who have repeatedly--repeatedly--said to the Senate: You need to pass a budget. We did so under regular order. Everyone will remember the night we spent here until 5 a.m. going through hundreds of amendments--the ones the minority leader just objected to that he wanted guarantees on before we went to conference. We voted on all those amendments. That is what this process is all about.

How can I, as Budget chairman, now do what the country is asking us to do, which is to compromise, move forward, and solve our problems rather than managing by crisis? If we cannot go to conference, how are we going to get a budget agreement moving forward? Everyone in this country knows this debate. It has gone on for several years. It went through the supercommittee. It went through an election where people's voices were heard. Now, after just berating us for not having a budget, the Senate Republicans are saying: Well, that did not matter. We do not care if you have a budget. We are just going to sit here.

That kind of chaos is exactly what this country does not need when it comes to our fragile economy today and people are trying to get back on their feet. I am ready to go to work. I am ready to sit down with the Republican leadership from the Budget Committee in the House and their conferees, to put our ideas on the table, and to make some tough choices. But I cannot do it until the Senate Republicans quit objecting to us moving to conference to get that done.

So this is the third time we have asked, the third time we have been turned down. We are going to keep trying to get this done. I am committed to solving one of the biggest problems facing our country-- give us certainty, get us back on track--but I cannot do it when the Republicans are objecting to allowing us to go to conference. So I am very disappointed.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I speak in morning business, followed by the Senator from New Hampshire, Ms. Ayotte.

Mr. President, I come to the floor because I believe the great strength of our military is in the character and dedication of our men and women who wear the uniform. It is the courage of these Americans to volunteer to serve. That is the Pentagon's greatest asset.

I know it is said a lot, but take a minute to think about that. Our servicemembers volunteer to face danger, to put their lives on the line to protect our country and all of its people. When we think of those dangers, we think of IEDs. We think of battles with insurgents, many of whom are so cowardly and evil that they refuse to even wear a uniform themselves, and they seek to kill innocent civilians.

There are, unfortunately, other dangers as well, dangers that cannot be expected and none of our courageous servicemembers should ever have to face. That is what I am speaking about, sexual assault. That continues to plague the ranks of our military services.

It is absolutely unconscionable that a fellow servicemember, the person whom you rely on to have your back and be there for you, would commit such a terrible crime. It is simply appalling that they could commit such a personal violation of their brother or sister in uniform.

Even worse is the prevalence of these crimes. Just today, we are hearing the alarming statistic that the number of cases has increased by more than one-third since 2010. For the estimated 26,000 cases of military sexual assault in 2012, less than 3,000 of them were reported. Out of 26,000, only 3,000 were reported. What is even more startling is that of those who bravely came forward and reported the abuse, an astounding 62 percent of them were retaliated against in one way or another.

According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, about one in five female veterans treated by the VA has suffered from military sexual trauma. That is certainly not the act of a comrade. It is not in keeping with the ethos in any service, and it can no longer be tolerated. We still have not done enough to put an end to these shameful acts.

Today I am taking action to change that. Today Senator Ayotte and I joined to introduce the Combatting Military Sexual Assault Act of 2013. This is bipartisan legislation that we have worked on to make several vital improvements to protect our servicemembers, to assist the victims, and to punish the criminals. Our bill, the Combatting Military Sexual Assault Act, will create a new category of legal advocates called special victims' counsels who would be responsible for advocating on behalf of the interests of the victim. These SVCs, special victims' counsels, would advise the victim on the range of legal issues they might face. For example, when a young private first class is intimidated into not reporting a sexual assault, by threatening her with unrelated legal charges such as underage drinking, this new advocate, the SVC, would be there to protect her and tell her the truth.

This bill would also enhance the responsibilities and authority of the Department of Defense Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, known as the SAPRO, to provide better oversight of efforts to combat military sexual assault across our Armed Forces. SAPRO would also be required to regularly track and report on a range of MSA statistics, including assault rates, the number of cases brought to trial, and compliance within each of these individual services.

Some of this data collection and reporting is already being done, so this requirement is not going to be burdensome. It would give that office statutory authority to track and report to us on the extent of the problem.

The Combatting Military Sexual Assault Act would also require sexual assault cases to be referred to the next superior competent authority for court martial when there is a conflict of interest in the immediate chain of command. This is very important. This will help ensure that sexual assault allegations get a fair, impartial,and thorough investigation. The President of the Military Officers Association of America agrees. They stated:

Preventing sexual assault is a duty of everyone in the

chain of command. This legislation will increase support for

sexual assault victims and strengthen policies and procedures

for such cases in our Nation's Armed Forces.

This legislation would also prohibit sexual contact between military instructors and servicemembers during basic training or its equivalent or within 30 days after the training. As we have seen, with disturbing frequency at places such as Lackland Air Force Base or the Air Force Academy, new servicemembers are too often taken advantage of and abused.

In these settings, new servicemembers have every aspect of their life controlled by their instructor. While this is appropriate for military training, in this type of setting it is entirely inappropriate for senior servicemembers to seek a sexual relationship with a junior subordinate. It is our view it is impossible for a servicemember to freely give consent in that setting.

This bill will also ensure that sexual assault response coordinators are available to members of the National Guard and Reserve at all times. I was told a very disturbing story recently by a female servicemember from the National Guard in my home State of Washington. After being sexually assaulted during her monthly drill on a military base, she took all the necessary steps, including calling the sexual assault response coordinator. When she called, she was told that because the assault happened during a monthly drill, not on Active Duty, the sexual response coordinator could not help her. Those services were only reserved for those on Active Duty.

That is absolutely unacceptable. When one of our men and women in uniform is the victim of a sexual assault, and they have the courage to come forward and ask for help, the answer never, ever should be, sorry, there are regulations, nothing I can do for you.

This bill is one step to address the crises we have in our own Armed Forces, and it needs to be done now. Yesterday's news that the Air Force's chief of sexual assault prevention was arrested for sexual assault is another reminder that we have to change the culture around this issue.

I want to be very clear. The military has taken some steps on its own. For instance, I am looking forward to seeing Secretary Hagel's proposal on how to reform article 60 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. As I think most of our colleagues know, under article 60, the convening authority of a court martial is empowered to dismiss the judgment of the court martial and overturn their verdict. Many of us, myself included, have had serious concerns about how that authority has been used in sexual assault cases.

We are here today to introduce this bill, and I wish to thank the Senator from New Hampshire for her advocacy on this issue and for her help in putting this legislation together.

I also wish to thank Representative Tim Ryan for his leadership and championing our companion bill in the other Chamber.

When I asked Navy Secretary Ray Mabus about the sexual assault epidemic, I was glad to hear him say ``concern'' wasn't a strong enough word to describe how he felt about this problem. He said he was angry about it.

I know a lot of us share this feeling. We want it to stop. I am very hopeful both Chambers can work quickly to do right by our Nation's heroes. When our best and brightest put on a uniform and joined our U.S. Armed Forces, they do so with the understanding they will sacrifice much in the name of defending our country and its people. That sacrifice should not have to come in the form of unwanted sexual contact from within the ranks.

I am very pleased to introduce this bill. I wish to thank Senator Ayotte again for her hard work and advocacy. It is a pleasure to work with her.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor because I believe the great strength of our military is in the character and dedication of our men and women who wear the uniform. It is the courage of these Americans to volunteer to serve. That is the Pentagon's greatest asset.

I know it is said a lot, but take a minute to think about that. Our servicemembers volunteer to face danger, to put their lives on the line to protect our country and all of its people. When we think of those dangers, we think of IEDs. We think of battles with insurgents, many of whom are so cowardly and evil that they refuse to even wear a uniform themselves, and they seek to kill innocent civilians.

There are, unfortunately, other dangers as well, dangers that cannot be expected and none of our courageous servicemembers should ever have to face. That is what I am speaking about, sexual assault. That continues to plague the ranks of our military services.

It is absolutely unconscionable that a fellow servicemember, the person whom you rely on to have your back and be there for you, would commit such a terrible crime. It is simply appalling that they could commit such a personal violation of their brother or sister in uniform.

Even worse is the prevalence of these crimes. Just today, we are hearing the alarming statistic that the number of cases has increased by more than one-third since 2010. For the estimated 26,000 cases of military sexual assault in 2012, less than 3,000 of them were reported. Out of 26,000, only 3,000 were reported. What is even more startling is that of those who bravely came forward and reported the abuse, an astounding 62 percent of them were retaliated against in one way or another.

According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, about one in five female veterans treated by the VA has suffered from military sexual trauma. That is certainly not the act of a comrade. It is not in keeping with the ethos in any service, and it can no longer be tolerated. We still have not done enough to put an end to these shameful acts.

Today I am taking action to change that. Today Senator Ayotte and I joined to introduce the Combatting Military Sexual Assault Act of 2013. This is bipartisan legislation that we have worked on to make several vital improvements to protect our servicemembers, to assist the victims, and to punish the criminals. Our bill, the Combatting Military Sexual Assault Act, will create a new category of legal advocates called special victims' counsels who would be responsible for advocating on behalf of the interests of the victim. These SVCs, special victims' counsels, would advise the victim on the range of legal issues they might face. For example, when a young private first class is intimidated into not reporting a sexual assault, by threatening her with unrelated legal charges such as underage drinking, this new advocate, the SVC, would be there to protect her and tell her the truth.

This bill would also enhance the responsibilities and authority of the Department of Defense Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, known as the SAPRO, to provide better oversight of efforts to combat military sexual assault across our Armed Forces. SAPRO would also be required to regularly track and report on a range of MSA statistics, including assault rates, the number of cases brought to trial, and compliance within each of these individual services.

Some of this data collection and reporting is already being done, so this requirement is not going to be burdensome. It would give that office statutory authority to track and report to us on the extent of the problem.

The Combatting Military Sexual Assault Act would also require sexual assault cases to be referred to the next superior competent authority for court martial when there is a conflict of interest in the immediate chain of command. This is very important. This will help ensure that sexual assault allegations get a fair, impartial,and thorough investigation. The President of the Military Officers Association of America agrees. They stated:

Preventing sexual assault is a duty of everyone in the

chain of command. This legislation will increase support for

sexual assault victims and strengthen policies and procedures

for such cases in our Nation's Armed Forces.

This legislation would also prohibit sexual contact between military instructors and servicemembers during basic training or its equivalent or within 30 days after the training. As we have seen, with disturbing frequency at places such as Lackland Air Force Base or the Air Force Academy, new servicemembers are too often taken advantage of and abused.

In these settings, new servicemembers have every aspect of their life controlled by their instructor. While this is appropriate for military training, in this type of setting it is entirely inappropriate for senior servicemembers to seek a sexual relationship with a junior subordinate. It is our view it is impossible for a servicemember to freely give consent in that setting.

This bill will also ensure that sexual assault response coordinators are available to members of the National Guard and Reserve at all times. I was told a very disturbing story recently by a female servicemember from the National Guard in my home State of Washington. After being sexually assaulted during her monthly drill on a military base, she took all the necessary steps, including calling the sexual assault response coordinator. When she called, she was told that because the assault happened during a monthly drill, not on Active Duty, the sexual response coordinator could not help her. Those services were only reserved for those on Active Duty.

That is absolutely unacceptable. When one of our men and women in uniform is the victim of a sexual assault, and they have the courage to come forward and ask for help, the answer never, ever should be, sorry, there are regulations, nothing I can do for you.

This bill is one step to address the crises we have in our own Armed Forces, and it needs to be done now. Yesterday's news that the Air Force's chief of sexual assault prevention was arrested for sexual assault is another reminder that we have to change the culture around this issue.

I want to be very clear. The military has taken some steps on its own. For instance, I am looking forward to seeing Secretary Hagel's proposal on how to reform article 60 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. As I think most of our colleagues know, under article 60, the convening authority of a court martial is empowered to dismiss the judgment of the court martial and overturn their verdict. Many of us, myself included, have had serious concerns about how that authority has been used in sexual assault cases.

We are here today to introduce this bill, and I wish to thank the Senator from New Hampshire for her advocacy on this issue and for her help in putting this legislation together.

I also wish to thank Representative Tim Ryan for his leadership and championing our companion bill in the other Chamber.

When I asked Navy Secretary Ray Mabus about the sexual assault epidemic, I was glad to hear him say ``concern'' wasn't a strong enough word to describe how he felt about this problem. He said he was angry about it.

I know a lot of us share this feeling. We want it to stop. I am very hopeful both Chambers can work quickly to do right by our Nation's heroes. When our best and brightest put on a uniform and joined our U.S. Armed Forces, they do so with the understanding they will sacrifice much in the name of defending our country and its people. That sacrifice should not have to come in the form of unwanted sexual contact from within the ranks.

I am very pleased to introduce this bill. I wish to thank Senator Ayotte again for her hard work and advocacy. It is a pleasure to work with her.

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

Madam President, I would ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes on the nomination of Sylvia Mathews Burwell.

Madam President, I thank Senator Sessions, and I rise today to speak in support of Sylvia Mathews Burwell, whose nomination to be the next Director of the Office of Management and Budget was approved last week with strong bipartisan support by our Senate Budget Committee.

As we all know, our country does face serious fiscal and economic challenges we have to work together to address. The American people are looking to us to end this constant artificial crisis and political brinkmanship that is threatening our fragile economic recovery. They want us to come together around fair solutions that work for our middle class, help the economy grow, and tackle our deficit and debt fairly and responsibly. It is time we stop governing from crisis to crisis and return stability and regular order to our budget process.

That is why I am so pleased we have such an exceptional and qualified nominee in Sylvia Burwell to lead OMB. I know she is the right person to come into this leadership role at this important time for our country. She is no stranger to OMB or to tackling important fiscal issues.

In the 1990s, she was a critical part of President Clinton's economic team. She served as Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Deputy Chief of Staff to the President, and Chief of Staff to the Secretary of the Treasury. In those roles, she worked very closely with Jack Lew, Erskine Bowles, Robert Rubin, and the rest of President Clinton's economic team to help produce three out of four budget surpluses in a row. During her tenure, our government took a fair, credible, and sustainable approach to our Federal budget. That gave businesses the confidence to hire new workers and invest in their growth.

Her leadership and hard work in the 1990s helped to create broad- based economic growth that worked for the middle class and turned our debt and deficit problems around. Sylvia's firsthand experience creating a balanced and responsible approach to deficit reduction makes her uniquely qualified to lead OMB at this important time for our country.

Since the 1990s, Sylvia has dedicated her life to helping people all over the world. As the president of the Global Development Program and the chief operating officer at the Gates Foundation, she worked to improve the lives of millions across the globe. Under her leadership, the foundation invested in important programs to help combat poverty and produce clean water and improve literacy, and provides emergency relief to those who need it the most.

Most recently, as president of the Wal-Mart Foundation, she led the Foundation's charitable giving and focused on critical issues such as hunger relief and women's economic empowerment.

Not only do Sylvia's achievements in the foundation of philanthropy worlds demonstrate her vast experience managing large global budgets, but they also speak volumes of her values and demonstrate her deep lifelong commitment to serving others.

Sylvia grew up understanding the value of hard work and public service. Her parents have been community leaders in West Virginia for over half a century. Her father is a long-time optometrist and her mother, the Honorable Cleo Mathews, served as the mayor of her hometown of Hinton, and later served on the West Virginia State Board of Education for a decade. As my colleague Senator Manchin said when he introduced her to our Budget Committee, it is easy to see public service is a part of Sylvia's DNA.

As the Director of OMB, Sylvia will help set our Nation's priorities and make tough decisions about our Federal spending. So I am glad Sylvia knows budgets are about more than abstract numbers and partisan back and forth. As a second generation Greek American, Sylvia understands the importance of the promise of American opportunity. She knows budgets are a reflection of our values and our priorities, and they are about families across the country whose lives and futures are impacted by the decisions we make.

Not only is Sylvia an expert on domestic economic policy and a dedicated public servant, she has a demonstrated track record of working across the aisle to get things done. During her time in Washington in the 1990s, she reached across the aisle and negotiated the balanced and fair budgets with Republicans in Congress. She knows working to find common ground is the key to solving our fiscal challenge--a point made clear by her during her confirmation hearing in front of our Senate Budget Committee this month.

So I am pleased her nomination passed our committee on a voice vote with strong bipartisan approval. Republicans, including Senator Sessions, who here on the floor praised Sylvia as someone who is, by all accounts, well-liked and an able leader committed to public service.

Madam President, I support this nomination, I urge my colleagues to vote yes, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues and urge them to vote in support of Sally Jewell, who has been nominated to serve as Interior Secretary. I thank Senator Wyden for all of his work in moving her through this process to today. I was thrilled when President Obama nominated Sally for this position, and I couldn't be more excited to support her confirmation.

Sally is going to come to the Department of the Interior at a difficult time for our country. As a nation, we are working very hard to protect our environment and invest in new technologies to meet our energy demands. And on the local level, including in my home State of Washington, Sally is going to face some complex issues, such as protecting tribal lands and

treaty rights. But I can think of no one better prepared for this task than Sally.

After she studied at the University of Washington to become an engineer, Sally left the Northwest for the oilfields of Oklahoma and Colorado, where she learned about the energy sector from the inside out. She moved from the outdoors--as you can see from this picture--to the boardroom and spent nearly two decades in finance helping businesses grow and learning what it takes to succeed in the marketplace.

Time and again, Sally has broken the mold to take on tough tasks-- often in male-dominated industries. When she joined Recreational Equipment, Incorporated, the Seattle-based outdoor retailer, it was struggling. But after 8 years with Sally as CEO, REI is now thriving, topping $1 billion in sales, while leading the charge to protect our environment. And finding that balance--navigating the business world while keeping REI's commitment to the outdoors--is what will make Sally great as our next Interior Secretary. Perhaps better than anyone, Sally knows that businesses and the environment both benefit when we are committed to protecting our national parks and promoting our national treasures. At REI, Sally has proven that sustainability and responsibility make sense for the environment and the company's bottom line.

In Washington State, she has worked closely with me to help create the Wild Sky Wilderness area and expand our other important environmental protections throughout our State. She has worked with industry and environmentalists to expand recreational opportunities throughout the Northwest and has helped us work toward permanently protecting BLM lands in the San Juan Islands, where my colleague Senator Maria Cantwell was at the forefront. That is truly a gem of Washington State and has recently been declared a national monument.

Sally has backed crucial public-private partnerships that create jobs through recreation, and she has supported groundbreaking programs to get young people involved in the outdoors.

So whether it is our forest lands in the Northwest or mineral deposits in the Southwest or oil reserves along our coastlines, Sally is going to lead an Interior Department where economic growth and long- term sustainability go hand in hand.

I am here today to urge my colleagues to vote in support of Sally Jewell, and I am really pleased she has been nominated. Again, I thank Senator Wyden for all of his work in getting her to this point in this process.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, on Saturday, March 23, 2013, the Senate passed the budget, S. Con. Res. 8. In my statement, I thanked a few members of my staff and I would like to acknowledge the rest of my dedicated staff who worked tirelessly to pass the Senate budget:

Jeannie Biniek, Sarah Bolton, Michael Branson, Alex

Brosseau, Dave Brown, Paula Burg, Josh Caplan, Stephanie

Cherkezian, Ally Coll, Brendon Dorgan, Amy Edwards, Robert

Etter, Jennifer Hanson, Helen Hare, Robyn Hiestand, Mike

Jones, Amaia Kirtland, Tyler Kruzich, Zach Moller, Michael

Oleyar, Farouk Ophaso, Jason Park, Miles Patrie, Ryan Pettit,

John Righter, Josh Ryan, Evan Schatz, Brian Scholl, Emily

Sharp, Eli Zupnick.

Steven Bergsbaken, Shawn Bills, Scott Cheney, Beth

Chrusciel, Sean Coit, Jake Cornett, Carole Cory, Katherine

Dapper, Ariel Evans, John Fogarty, Megan Foster, Emma

Fulkerson, Adam Goodwin, Dabney Hegg, Alex Keenan, Zach

Mallove, Matt McAlvanah, Megahan McCarthy, Ben Merkel, Rachel

Milberg, Silke Mounts, James O'Brien, Molly O'Rourke, Lauren

Overman, David Prestwood, Stacy Rich, Kathryn Robertson,

Meghan Roh, Alexa Seidl, Mike Spahn, Anna Sperling, Michael

Waske.

Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to a strong community leader, dedicated public servant, and advocate from the State of Washington, Barbara Geller.

I first met Barbara early in my political career and I would not be where I am today without her support and encouragement.

She was always willing to pitch in to do whatever was needed. Her strong commitment to her community showed in everything she did. She was a State committeewoman, chair of the 41st LD Democrats, and a delegate to the Democratic National Convention too many times to count.

But more importantly, she was a dedicated mother, grandmother, wife, and friend to many.

You could always count on Barb helping out. She never hesitated to pick up a phone, plan the Annual Eastside Democrats Annual Dinner, and to do every task in between. No matter how small the task, Barb would make it fun.

As a longtime Mercer Island resident, her kindness and grace inspired all who were around her.

Barb passed away on March 17, 2013, from pancreatic cancer at the age of 71.

Barb is survived by her husband Art, her two children, Randy and Betsy Geller, daughter-in-law Jennifer Hubbard Geller, and her two grandchildren, Rachel and Lucy Geller.

She will be missed by many, but her legacy of service will live on with all she has touched.

I would like to ask my colleagues to join me in paying homage to Barbara Geller. She lived a full life and our thoughts are with her loved ones at this time of great loss.

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, I move to reconsider the vote.

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 ask for the yeas and nays.

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 suggest the absence of a quorum.

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.

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

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?

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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, 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, 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 ask for the yeas and nays.

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 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, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment is not germane to the underlying resolution and therefore violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 622

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

Mr. 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.

I yield to the Senator from California.

Mr. President, before we go to this vote, I would just remind all Senators that at the end of this vote there will be up to 40 minutes of debate before the next amendment. I would ask all Senators who leave the floor to be back here by 6:30, maybe a little bit before that. But I would remind all of my colleagues that if you drift back in for half an hour on the first vote, it will be later and later as we get through this. So I would really ask everyone who leaves after they vote to be back here at 6:30 at the latest. We may yield a little bit back, but please be back by that time.

With that, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I yield to the Senator from Illinois.

Amendment No. 578

Mr. President, my understanding is that all the debate time on this has expired, all the time has expired.

And that the Enzi amendment is pending.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator Ayotte and Senator Baucus, who are next, are not going to call up their amendments. The question now is on the Durbin amendment, as amended.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, the next amendment that is in order is my amendment. I would like to yield to Senator Collins to speak on the amendment following mine, Amendment No. 144.

Mr. President, I was going to offer amendment No. 653, but I am not going to call up that amendment.

I would agree with Senator Collins on her amendment and ask for a voice vote.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, we have now gone through all of the amendments from the unanimous consent agreement. We are within a couple of minutes of having a unanimous consent request for the next group of amendments. I would ask that all Senators stay in the Chamber because it will just be a matter of several minutes and we will ask unanimous consent for the next group of amendments.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the next amendments in order to be called up be the following: Begich No. 341, Alexander No. 51, Merkley No. 398, Rubio No. 292, Hagan No. 278, and Isakson No. 138; that there be no second-degree amendments prior to the votes in relation to any of these amendments; that notwithstanding all time having expired on the resolution, there will be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote; that upon disposition of the Isakson amendment No. 138, the majority have the next amendment in order; finally, all these votes be 10-minute votes.

I would agree with the Senator. We are trying to work through. Members have a lot of priority amendments. We are trying to make sure our lists match. Our staffs are working very hard to go back and forth so everybody has equal time on the amendments which are a priority to each side. I apologize for taking time to do it. We are trying to come to an agreement, and sometimes it takes a few minutes.

I yield the floor to the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. President, I believe we can pass this amendment on a voice vote, unless there is an objection. Seeing none, I suggest we do this by voice.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I believe Senator Alexander's amendment is up.

Mr. President, Senator Alexander is off the floor. Senator Merkley is here. I would ask unanimous consent to reverse the order of these two amendments and go to Senator Merkley and then back to Senator Alexander.

I yield to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, Senator Alexander is on the floor, and I will yield to him to offer his amendment.

I yield our time to the Senator from Iowa.

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

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.

Amendment No. 292

Mr. President, I yield my time to the Senator from California.

Mr. President, if there is no objection, I suggest we voice vote this amendment.

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.

I believe the Senator from Georgia is next.

Amendment No. 138

Is there a Senator who wishes to speak in opposition?

Seeing none, I yield our time.

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

For the information of all Senators, we have worked through a lot of amendments, and I appreciate everybody's hard work. I am about to ask for unanimous consent that will lock in the next 16 amendments, which will take us well past midnight. I suggest that any Senator who is going to need a vote and wants to keep the Senate later talk to either Senator Sessions or myself very soon.

Amendments Nos. 693, 307, 198, 697, 482, 263, 314, 247, 606, 689, 537,

535, 442, 514, 273, and 373 en bloc

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next amendments in order to be called up be the following: Warner amendment No. 693, Thune amendment No. 307, Sanders amendment No. 198, Burr amendment No. 697, Reed of Rhode Island amendment No. 482, Paul amendment No. 263, Landrieu amendment No. 314, Cornyn amendment No. 247, Menendez amendment No. 606, Vitter amendment No. 689, Tester amendment No. 537, Toomey amendment No. 535, Casey amendment No. 442, Coats amendment No. 514, Cardin amendment No. 273, and Lee amendment No. 373; that there be no second-degree amendments in order prior to the votes in relation to any of these amendments; that notwithstanding all time having expired on the resolution, there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote; that upon disposition of the Lee amendment No. 373, the majority have the next amendment in order; finally, that all of these votes be 10-minute votes and the Chair report en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I will again remind Senators that if anyone has an amendment, please let us know very quickly.

Mr. President, if the clerk could call up the amendments en bloc.

Mr. President, 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.

Amendment No. 307

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Virginia.

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

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. 198

I believe we can take this on a voice vote.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask for a voice vote on the Sanders amendment.

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. 697

Mr. President, I strongly oppose this amendment. Repealing this budget's revenue increase and striking reconciliation would be irresponsible. Our budget would not raise taxes on veterans.

I yield back the remainder of my time to the Senator from Vermont.

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

The motion to reconsider was agreed to.

Amendment No. 482

Without objection, we will move to a voice vote on this amendment.

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

The motion to reconsider was agreed to.

Amendment No. 263

Mr. President, the budget resolution before the Senate represents the values and priorities of the pro-middle-class agenda. The Paul budget that is being offered includes tax savings for the wealthy and eliminates the programs that strengthen our economy and support our middle class.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, if there is no discussion, we will take this by voice vote.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, there is no opposition. We suggest a voice vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Menendez amendment listed in the previous order, amendment No. 606, be replaced with Udall amendment No. 483.

Mr. President, if there is no opposition, I would suggest a voice vote.

Mr. President, I don't believe there is any opposition to this amendment. I would ask the Senator if we could have a voice vote on this amendment as well.

Madam 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.

Amendment No. 537

Seeing no opposition, I suggest we take this by a voice vote.

Madam 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.

Amendment No. 535

Madam President, again, for our colleagues, the goal of our budget is to tackle our deficit and debt responsibly in a way that works for our middle-class families and our economy. That means a balanced mix of responsible spending cuts and new revenue from those who can afford it most.

I remind all Senators every bipartisan group who has examined our budget situation has acknowledged that reality. Simpson-Bowls, the Gang of 6, Domenici-Rivlin--all recommend several times more revenue than the roughly $600 billion that was generated by the yearend deal. In fact, Simpson-Bowles and the Gang of 6 each recommend well over $2 trillion in new revenue. So striking this reconciliation instruction, which is what this amendment does, and reducing the revenue level, goes in exactly the wrong direction. I ask for a strong ``no'' vote and oppose this amendment.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 442

Madam President, I believe we can take this by a 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, I believe the pending amendment is Coats amendment No. 514.

Madam President, I strongly oppose this amendment. I agree with the Senator from California, and I yield her my time in opposition.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, hearing no opposition, I suggest we have a voice vote on it.

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.

Amendment No. 373

Madam President, I too am committed to meeting the needs of our military to defend the Nation and our interests abroad. That is exactly what this budget does.

We should not be linking defense funding with unrelated benchmarks. This amendment is unnecessary. The Senate budget does fund defense above net interest in fiscal year 2014 and over both the 5- and 10-year windows.

I recommend that my colleagues oppose the amendment.

Madam President, may I just respond and say that we have been very hard at work here. We have had a number of amendments come before us. All of our staffs are working together to have as many amendments as we can put together for the next group of votes.

Really, I do want to thank all of our Senators. I know everybody has been working really hard to get their amendments up so we can have them in order. I think we are going to keep working on that, and I appreciate everybody's focus.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the next amendments in order to be called up be the following: McCaskill No. 366, Johnson of Wisconsin No. 213, Brown No. 455, and Scott No. 597; that there be no second-degree amendments in order prior to the votes in relation to any of these amendments; that notwithstanding all time having expired on the resolution, there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote; that upon disposition of Scott 597, the majority have the next amendment in order; finally, all these votes be 10-minute votes.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be reported en bloc.

Madam President, I would add to what the majority leader said. Senators have been very good in helping us work through our list on both sides. We will have some more amendments to be offered in a unanimous consent in a short while once we work through these four.

Again, I would ask all Senators to please work with the leader on your side, Mr. Sessions on the Republican side, and myself. We need to know which amendments you have to have votes on so we can start letting Senators know where we are going to end up here. I would ask everybody to continue cooperating with us. I appreciate everybody who has been working so hard.

Amendment No. 366

Madam President, hearing no opposition, I suggest we voice vote this amendment.

Madam 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. 213

Madam President, Social Security and Medicare have played a very critical role in providing a foundation of financial security and health care for millions upon millions of Americans over the decades. Democrats are committed to preserving and protecting them. When analyzing the solvency of these programs, it must be over more than just a 10-year budget window; we must measure them over a 75-year window.

This amendment, however, does nothing to protect the integrity of the Medicare and Social Security trust funds, and it does not do anything to improve their solvency. We should have a debate about the solvency of these programs but not on the budget resolution.

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

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

The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 455

Madam President, I don't believe there is any opposition to this amendment and I ask that we take it by a voice vote.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, the Senator has yielded back his time?

Madam President, I would speak in opposition.

Gains in quality, productivity, and efficiency year after year, in department after department, would not have been possible without the reasonable and sound use of collective bargaining and worker representation. This amendment is just another in a long line of attempts to kill public-sector unions--unions that represent and ensure quality public service.

I strongly recommend that my colleagues oppose this amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the next amendments in order to be called up be the following: Cardin No. 706, Inhofe No. 359, Menendez No. 705, Sessions No. 614, Merkley No. 696, Roberts No. 187, Menendez No. 619, Portman No. 152; that there be no second-degree amendments in order prior to the votes in relation to any of these amendments; that notwithstanding all time having expired on the resolution there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote; upon disposition of Portman No. 152, the majority have the next amendment in order; all these votes be 10 minutes; and we report them en bloc.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Maryland.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, has all time been used on our side?

I yield to the Senator from Maryland.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I believe there is no opposition. If we could take a voice vote on this?

Mr. President, I yield time to the Senator from New Jersey.

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

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.

Amendment No. 696

Mr. President, is there opposition?

Mr. President, I believe there is no opposition. We can take it by a voice vote. Senator Merkley has asked for a loud vote.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I yield to the Senator from Iowa.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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.

Amendment No. 152

Mr. President, I oppose this amendment. Malpractice premiums and claims and claim payouts have all gone down in recent years, partly as a result of steps many of our States have already taken. Caps on noneconomic damages limit compensation for such harms as loss of fertility or severe disfigurement or loss of mobility or loss of a spouse or a child. Damage caps do not affect frivolous lawsuits but, rather, impact the victims who have been seriously injured and who would win in court.

Tort reform can create enormous risks and costs. Immunizing health care providers against accountability for their mistakes risks increasing the number of preventable medical errors.

So this proposal would cut losses for insurers by curbing our patients' right to sue, but there is no requirement in these proposals for insurers to pass on any savings to the doctors who pay their premiums.

So I recommend a ``no'' vote on this amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, we have had very good cooperation. We are working this list down. I have another unanimous consent request. I believe most of these will go by voice vote, and I appreciate everybody's cooperation.

Amendments Nos. 624, 295, 232, 538, 412, and 340 En Bloc

I ask unanimous consent that the next amendments in order to be called up be the following: Johanns No. 624, Corker No. 295, Burr No. 232, Wicker No. 538, Coburn No. 412, and Shelby No. 340; that there be no second-degree amendments in order prior to the votes in relation to any of these amendments; that notwithstanding all time having expired on the resolution, there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote and that all the votes be 10-minute votes; that upon disposition of the Shelby amendment No. 340, the next amendment in order be an amendment from the majority; and I ask unanimous consent they be reported en bloc.

Mr. President, I have looked at this amendment. I do have some concerns about the implementation, but I think we can work them out. I would be willing to accept this on a voice vote.

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. 295 Withdrawn

Mr. President, I believe that the next amendment in order is the Burr amendment No. 232.

Mr. President, I am speaking for my counterpart. This is another deficit-neutral fund, which I know Senator Sessions has been expressing his concern about all evening. I am delighted to accept this amendment on a voice vote.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I think this amendment is unnecessary.

We already have proper points of order. I will not hold it up. I will not oppose it if you want to do a voice vote.

Mr. President, I believe that the voice vote was a ``yes'' vote. I would ask my colleagues if we can redo the vote so we can hear it.

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. 412

Mr. President, I will not oppose this amendment. I am delighted to see another deficit-neutral reserve fund put into place on this bill that I know my colleagues on the other side of this aisle have not been very happy about throughout the process. But in the spirit of good will, I am happy to accept this amendment on a voice vote.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I yield my time to the Senator from South Dakota.

Mr. President, I join my colleague in opposing this amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I have another group of amendments for which I will ask unanimous consent.

I ask unanimous consent the next amendments in order to be called up will be the following: Flake amendment No. 225, Graham amendment No. 329, Heller amendment No. 293, Boozman amendment No. 527, Portman amendment No. 153, and Ayotte amendment No. 136; that there be no second-degree amendments in order prior to the votes in relation to any of these amendments, but notwithstanding all time having expired on the resolution, there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote, and that all votes be 10-minute votes; that upon the disposition of Ayotte amendment No. 136, the next amendment be an amendment from the majority.

I ask the amendments be called up en bloc.

I would answer the Senator, we are working through between the majority and minority as fast as we can. I don't think anybody here will say I have not been working very hard to get up their amendment.

We are doing our best to get everybody considered from both sides. If we keep going, I am happy to do this.

May I make a suggestion?

I think a lot of people want to know the answer to that question. If we could move to the Flake amendment, ask me any question you have, and I will have the answer for you.

Mr. President, the next amendment is offered by Senator Graham, amendment No. 329.

I am happy to take a voice vote on this amendment.

Mr. President, may I have the floor for a moment?

Mr. President, I was really trying to focus on what the Senator was saying. It was very difficult for me to understand, and I think many of us were confused about the amendment. I support the amendment, and I ask for a voice vote.

Mr. President, this actually is a commonsense approach, and I do urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I will be happy to accept it on a voice vote.

Mr. President, I do not oppose this amendment, and I am happy to have a voice vote.

Mr. President, I am willing to accept this on a voice vote.

I yield to the Senator from Illinois.

I am amenable to a voice vote.

Mr. President, before we go to the rollcall vote on this, I want to turn to all my colleagues and remind all of us that what we are here trying to do is to pass a budget out of the Senate.

I have heard from so many people for so many months about how important it is that we get a budget out so we can move to the next process in this whole thing of getting our country back on track, and we are trying to do it in a responsible way.

We have had a really great debate in our committee, out here on the floor, and many Senators have participated in it. We have now had I believe 62 or 63 amendments, and I think we have a responsibility to work toward final passage.

I am aware that not every Senator had an opportunity to have an amendment, but I think many, many Senators have to say they were able to get their amendments. We have had amendments on virtually every topic here tonight, including the budget, but I would really ask all Senators to stop and think about what we are showing the American public.

What we would like the American public to think is that the Senate as a group of 100 people can have a process to move a budget forward and vote on it, whether we agree with it or we disagree with it. And I think we are pretty much there in showing the American public that we can have a good debate, have numerous amendments, have our voices heard. At the end of the day, it is a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote.

So while we have this next vote, I would really like everyone to take a second and think about how we look to the American people and how important it is that we move this process along so that we can come to a final conclusion and hopefully get bipartisan agreement to get our country back on track.

Mr. President, we do have a vote that needs to occur but a final word here. I would just say that we want to get a budget passed, and I know the minority wants us to pass a budget. We have been told that time and time again. We can't pass a budget if we are filibustered by amendments for the rest of the night.

So I would urge all our colleagues to have this vote, and let's have some discussions and see if we can come to a final conclusion.

With that, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I can keep on standing all night. I am sure a number of Senators can. I do have respect for a number of our Senators here who may not be able to stand as long as some of us or who are elderly, and I would ask consideration of them. That is just my request.

With that, I do think we need to get to a vote here.

Mr. President, we have been working throughout the last vote. I am hoping we are getting to a very short list in the near future.

I recognize there are Senators who are frustrated and that want an opportunity to speak out. I know there are a number of Senators who are very tired. Everybody's patience is wearing thin. I would just ask everybody to hold your patience for just a few more minutes. I am going to put us into a quorum call. I am hoping we can get an agreement and give everybody some certainty.

I know on our side we want to get a budget passed. We have been working for a great deal of time. We want to move this process forward. We know there are Senators on the other side who may not agree with our budget but agree with us that we have to move to a process to get our country back on track.

So I would ask everybody's patience for just a short while; hopefully, we can get this resolved and we can get a budget passed.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I will hold the floor and yield for a question.

Mr. President, I would be willing to get an amendment going, but I haven't seen it yet. I would like the ability to take a look at it, so I suggest the absence of a quorum. It will only be for a very few minutes--patience, please--and then we will come back in and see if we can get to a vote.

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

Mr. President, I am proud of our Senators for having patience for exactly 30 seconds.

I yield to the Senator from Idaho to offer an amendment.

Let me thank the Senator from Idaho, who has been very involved in a lot of discussions over time in trying to manage us toward a better place with our Federal debt and deficit. I understand his dedication, but I oppose this amendment. Over the last several years we have enacted $1.8 trillion in spending cuts on a bipartisan basis. We do not have any trouble cutting spending in this body right now. We do seem to have trouble locking in the revenue necessary to achieve a balanced revenue reduction. I recommend our colleagues oppose this amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I ask unanimous consent that the following package of amendments, 17 Democratic and 13 Republican amendments, be considered and agreed to en bloc: Shaheen No. 149, Blumenthal-Moran No. 577, Johnson No. 593, Manchin No. 316, Wyden No. 394, Baucus No. 267, Hagan No. 269, Franken No. 353, Cardin No. 453, Udall of New Mexico No. 192, Franken No. 479, Baucus No. 581, Casey No. 265, Sanders No. 594, Wyden- Portman No. 618, Levin No. 430, as modified, Manchin No. 499, Toomey No. 434, Coats No. 195, Hoeven No. 319, Ayotte No. 161, Kirk No. 671, Murkowski No. 672, Rubio No. 623, Alexander No. 348, Boozman No. 389, Heller No. 477, Hoeven No. 217, Enzi No. 489, and Hoeven No. 655.

This is a package that has been agreed to by both managers, and I urge the Senate to accept them.

That is different.

I am now going to ask for unanimous consent for a number of amendments to get to final passage. I would say to all Senators that we are going to have a number of votes. We would like to tell everyone to sit in your seat. We will get through these faster if we can have the rollcalls and be done quickly. So I encourage everyone to be in this room.

I ask unanimous consent that the next amendments in order to be called up be the following: Barrasso No. 184, Paul No. 382, Vitter No. 526, Vitter No. 338, Cruz No. 471, Cruz No. 702, Lee No. 673, Lee No. 521, Coburn No. 414, Coburn No. 416, Coburn No. 709, Portman No. 154, Leahy No. 710, a side-by-side to Senator Inhofe's No. 139, and Inhofe No. 139; that there be no second-degree amendments prior to votes in relation to any of those amendments; that none of the amendments be divisible; that notwithstanding all time having expired under the resolution, there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote, and that all votes be 10-minute votes; that upon disposition of the Inhofe amendment No. 139, the Senate proceed immediately to vote on adoption of S. Con. Res. 8, as amended.

Madam President, I would hope that we would defeat these amendments. If there is no objection----

We will then move to these amendments. Again, all Senators sit in your seats and vote. We will get through these as quickly as possible.

Mr. President, before we go to the yeas and nays, can I just say, in setting an example for the evening, I will be less than 1 minute. We believe this is current law. We will accept a voice vote.

The Senate budget resolution that is in front of us, that we are hoping to get passed tonight, provides strong investments in transportation infrastructure. It fully funds MAP-21, the recent highway bill. It provides $50 billion for urgent transportation needs and another $10 billion for an infrastructure bank.

We could put more funding toward transportation projects and fund some good projects but not without making cuts to other vital programs. The amendment before us will make unnecessary and deep cuts to foreign aid and energy programs. I oppose this amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Voter photo identification laws are overly burdensome and have the ability to disenfranchise voters. We should not attempt to implement these policies nationwide, especially at 3:15 in the morning on a budget resolution.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I would just note there is nothing in a unanimous consent which precludes a Senator from withdrawing an amendment.

Access to a telephone is beneficial for anyone trying to get a job or attempting to communicate with their family or receiving help in an emergency. Since 1985, the Lifeline Program has made it easier for low-income Americans to have a phone by providing a small monthly subsidy toward basic service. The program has seen an influx in new users over the past several years after the eligibility expanded to include mobile phones.

The FCC issued an order in January 2012 to attack waste, fraud, and abuse in the program, and that order has been successful.

I recommend my colleagues oppose this amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I yield my time to the Senator from New Jersey, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.

Mr. President, I yield my time to the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. 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.

Amendment No. 673

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment is not germane. The underlying resolution therefore violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

We will take this on a voice vote.

Mr. President, I would ask that the Senator accommodate us. We are willing to give it to him.

Mr. President, it is important to reduce wasteful spending and ensure all Federal funding is spent efficiently and effectively. The budget resolution is not the appropriate place for funding decisions at a subprogrammatic level.

I recommend we oppose the amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, before we go to the next vote, I would like to thank all the pages. They have been here all night working, and I would like to thank them: Austin Hall, Patrick Irby-Bailey, Emma Duhnke, Andrew Brennen, Stewart Maxfield, Brittany Robertson, and Katie Robinson.

The budget already includes a deficit reduction reserve fund for the elimination, consolidation, and reform of Federal programs to achieve savings. Our budget goes even further to instruct committees to review the GAO report on duplication and asks committees to use this information to reduce overlap and identify efficiencies. The budget does not single out individual programs because we believe that sorting through duplication should be the role of our authorizing committees. That is why we have specifically instructed committees to review GAO's findings on duplication in their high-risk list.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I yield to the Chair of the Finance Committee.

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.

Mr. President, before going to the next amendment, I have one unanimous consent request. Senator Sessions and I have been able to clear Durbin-Moran amendment No. 525. I ask unanimous consent that it be agreed to.

Mr. President, I yield to the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the Senator from Vermont.

It is late--early in the morning. I want to take this opportunity to thank my colleague Senator Sessions for a vigorous debate and for all of our colleagues participating in this debate. I am very proud of my colleagues. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

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.

Madam President, the Senate has passed a budget. I want to thank all of my colleagues. I especially want to thank our staff who

have literally spent weeks and weeks and days and hours on this--Evan Schatz and Mike Spahn and John Righter and the others who are sitting behind us tonight--as well as Senator Sessions and all of his staff.

It is a tribute to their hard work and my lost voice that we are sitting here tonight ready to take the next step to get our country back on a better fiscal path.

I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.