Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

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

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

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

Mrs. MURRAY. 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.

Mrs. MURRAY. 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.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. 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 Amendment No. 295 Withdrawn

Mrs. MURRAY. 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.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. MURRAY. 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.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator for raising this very important issue. I look forward to working with him to ensure that community health centers can continue to provide care to our most vulnerable populations today and in the future.

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield my 1 minute to the Senator from Michigan.

Mrs. MURRAY. 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. 432

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want all of our Members to understand that the second amendment we will be voting on tonight is the Ryan budget. Now, there seems to be some resistance among my Republican colleagues in bringing up the House Republican budget for a vote, and it is pretty easy to see why that is. Last year's Republican budget was, in fact, soundly rejected by the American people in the election. Since then, it continues to be very clear the American people prefer a balanced and fair approach that puts our economy and our middle class first--not an extreme, irresponsible approach. Unfortunately, House Republicans put forward a budget last week that doubles down on the rejected ideology that the American people spoke about. They have a new talking point about their same old budget. They now claim their budget would eliminate the deficit in 2023. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan has even said it does not really matter how their budget eliminates the deficit. Americans across our country who will feel the impact of the choices we make in the coming weeks and months believe that it does matter. So while some of my Republican colleagues would probably prefer not to hear about it, I think that the impact of the House Republican budget is a crucial part of this debate, and we owe it to the American people to put our opinions on the record. We have come a long way, but there are still far too many Americans today who are unemployed or underemployed, which is why our Senate budget's first priority is boosting our economic recovery. Speaker Boehner has actually agreed with President Obama that our debt does not present ``an immediate crisis.'' So you might think the House budget would phase in cuts responsibly so we can protect our fragile recovery. Instead, the House Republican budget would do serious damage to job creation and job growth, and it doubles down on the harmful cuts from sequestration, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates will lower employment by 750,000 jobs this year alone and slow economic growth. The House Republican budget will weaken our economy in the long term as well. As any business owner will tell you, in tight times, the last thing you want to do is cut investments that help make you stronger. Well, that is what the House Republican budget does. It cuts investments in education, so our students and workers are less prepared for the jobs of the future. It would undermine our ability to upgrade our roads and bridges and highways and ports even though our national infrastructure just got a D-plus from the American Society of Civil Engineers. And the House budget would greatly reduce our ability to support research and development, making it so much harder for us to maintain the innovative edge that helps us attract new industries and new businesses to the United States. Americans want to see a budget that puts the middle class first and asks the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to do their fair share too as we work toward deficit reduction. So our Senate budget locks in tax cuts for the middle class while closing loopholes and cutting wasteful spending in the Tax Code. Our budget uses that new revenue from the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations for deficit reduction and for investments that support our economy and strengthen our middle class. The House Republican budget, which we will vote on tonight, does the opposite. According to the Tax Policy Center, the tax plan in the House Republican budget would cost nearly $5.7 trillion in lost Federal revenue, and the majority of that lost revenue would benefit the wealthiest Americans. Just like past House Republican budgets, it is once again pretty unclear how this budget would pay for all those tax cuts that are skewed toward the wealthiest. But the reality is that to achieve the goals that are laid out in their budget, House Republicans will either have to add to the deficit--meaning their budget might not actually balance, as they claim--or they are going to have to raise taxes on the middle class. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, to keep from increasing the deficit while lowering rates--which they propose to do-- the House budget would have to raise taxes by an average of $3,000 on families making less than $200,000 a year who have children. But in their plan, the wealthiest Americans will see a net tax cut averaging about $245,000. There is no reason middle-class families should have to pay for a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. That is bad for our economy. It is very unfair. That kind of unbalanced approach is what made Americans reject the House Republican budget in the first place. The same is true of Medicare. We just heard Senator Stabenow talk eloquently about the importance of Medicare. Well, the House Republican budget would replace the Medicare guarantee with a voucher, capped at growth levels below projected health care costs, forcing our seniors to pay more and more out of pocket, and ending Medicare as we know it. That is not a solution that our seniors deserve. AARP said, in their critique of the House Republican budget: Removing the Medicare guarantee of affordable health coverage seniors have contributed to through a lifetime of hard work is not the answer. That is not me, that is AARP. The Senate budget offers a much better answer. Let me remind everyone, in our budget we uphold the principle--consistent with Simpson-Bowles and all other bipartisan deficit reduction proposals-- that the most vulnerable families should not be asked to bear the burden of deficit reduction. Our budget maintains the safety net that has kept millions of families and children above the poverty line during the recession and strongly supports efforts to help our low-income students and others, as they try to get back in the job market. House Republicans say their budget balances. Nothing in it sounds like balance to me. I would like to remind my colleagues as this debate continues that unlike what House Republicans have said about how a budget achieves its goals, how it achieves those goals really matters a lot. The American people have rejected this plan, and, understandably, some of my colleagues across the aisle would prefer not to vote on it. Our Senate budget offers a credible, serious approach to a fair and bipartisan agreement. It puts jobs and the economy first and provides a credible, balanced path forward. We are going to have to make some tough choices in the coming weeks and months, and I recognize moving away from the extreme approach in the House Republican budget is going to be a tough choice for many of my Republican colleagues. But I hope, as they consider the effects of the House Republican budget on our economy and on our families throughout the country, and the fact that the House Republican approach has been thoroughly reviewed and rejected by the American people, they will now be willing to come to the table, end the gridlock and dysfunction, and discuss a fair, comprehensive budget deal. Mr. President, I yield the floor and yield the remainder of my time.

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, again, the goal of our budget is to tackle our deficit and debt responsibly in a way that works for the middle class and the economy. That means a balanced mix of responsible spending cuts and new revenue from those who can afford it the most. All of the bipartisan groups that have examined our budget situation have acknowledged this reality--Simpson-Bowles, Gang of 6, Domenici- Rivlin--and recommended more revenue than the roughly $600 billion that we generated in the yearend deal. In fact, Simpson-Bowles and the Gang of 6 each recommended well over $2 trillion in new revenue, which is several times more than the yearend deal. Repealing this budget's proposed revenue increase and striking the reconciliation instruction would be wholly irresponsible. We cannot cut our way out of this problem. I urge my colleagues to vote no. For the information of all Senators, this is the last vote this evening. Tomorrow there are votes beginning at 11. I ask again that all Senators be here. We are going to move through a lot of amendments tomorrow. I have a lot of Senators asking me to have their amendment voted on. I assure everyone that by 1 a.m., 2 a.m. tomorrow night, many Senators won't have that opportunity unless they are here and help move that process along. I yield the floor and ask for a ``no'' vote. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this next amendment is the Ryan budget. The House Republicans have doubled down on failed policies by passing the same budget that was rejected by the American people just a few months ago. Now Senate Republicans are going to have to decide whether they agree with this approach. This budget would be devastating for the middle class and the economy. It would cause millions of our workers to lose their jobs and dismantle programs such as Medicare that seniors and families depend on. It relies on gimmicks and tricks to eliminate the deficit by an arbitrary date and does all that while giving the wealthiest Americans a tax cut. I encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. I assume that means the time will be divided equally, which means the Senator from Alabama would only have 1 additional minute.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes off the resolution to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, our Members have been waiting for 2\1/2\ hours to get to a vote. I know we have had a lot of time to debate. We will have additional time after the votes as well, as the Senator knows, tonight and tomorrow morning. I would respectfully ask if we could stay on time because a lot of Members have been waiting for the vote.