Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this budget makes massive cuts in Medicaid and will throw women, men, and children off of that vitally important program. I strongly support the Wyden amendment. Let's protect Medicaid.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Moran raising this issue. Last year we wrote the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act. We included language to allow veterans living at least 40 miles from a VA facility to access care in the community. Like Senator Moran, I represent a rural State. I am the first to understand the unique needs of rural veterans. I have spoken with Senator Moran and understand his intention is to ensure that veterans living at least 40 miles from a facility that provides the care they need can seek care in the community through the Choice Program on a case-by-case basis. If that is his intention, I think it is a good amendment. I think we should all support it.

Mr. SANDERS. This amendment establishes a deficit-neutral fund to prevent the U.S. Postal Service from----

Mr. SANDERS. Thank you.

Mr. SANDERS. Has the 10-minute limit expired?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SANDERS. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SANDERS. This deficit-neutral reserve fund would prevent the Postal Service from shutting down 82 processing plants in 37 States. It would restore delivery standards which have been slowed down and protect rural postal services. The Postal Service is vital to the well-being of our Nation and economy. This is especially true in our rural areas. This is an issue that has had bipartisan support for the last number of years. Senator Collins is a cosponsor of this amendment. She has been very active on this issue, and I would hope we could pass it with a voice vote.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this amendment is not about family farms or small business. This amendment benefits exclusively the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent of the families in this country--the very, very wealthiest people--and 99.7 percent of the families in America will not benefit by 1 nickel. By the way, for those concerned about the deficit, this will cost us $250 billion over a 10-year period. Ironically, the Republican budget raises taxes for lower income families who are on the earned-income tax credit program and the children's tax credit program. So what we are doing now is giving tax breaks to billionaires in the same bill that we are raising taxes for low-income working families, and adding significantly to the deficit. I think this should be a ``no'' vote.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the Republican budget throws 27 million people off of health care. It denies nutrition programs for hungry kids and pregnant women. It cuts $90 billion from the Pell program, making it harder for young people to get a college education, and it raises the price of prescription drugs for the elderly. For Senator Paul, that is apparently not enough. He wants, over a 2-year period, $189 billion in cuts to discretionary programs, which will be devastating to the working families of this country. Stop the war against working families. Vote no on the Paul amendment. I make a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 312(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SANDERS. This is truly a remarkable amendment because it runs directly in opposition to everything the Republicans have been talking about. They say we have to cut Medicare and Medicaid and education because of the terrible deficit. Do you know why we have a deficit and large debt? Because we went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan and we forgot to pay for it. Now Senator Rubio says, hey, let's continue spending more money on war but just put it on the credit card. We don't have to pay for it. Enough is enough. If you want to go to war, start paying for that war. Let the American people know what the cost of war is. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 312(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. SANDERS. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, dynamic scoring is nothing more than an accounting gimmick that makes tax cuts appear at least partly pay for themselves. It is an attempt to make it seem like the failed policies of trickledown economics work, but we know better. According to the CBO, the Bush tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 are responsible for more than 13 percent of the increase in our national debt from 2001 to 2011. Tax cuts did not grow the economy; they just grew our debt. The fuzzy math of dynamic scoring may get to a different answer, but the reality is that tax cuts for large profitable corporations and the wealthiest Americans do not pay for themselves. They just make the rich richer. Once again, Republicans are opting for accounting gimmicks to cover up their real intentions. Dynamic scoring will rig the scoring process in favor of legislation that benefits those who are already doing very well. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I yield 20 seconds to the Senator from California.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I yield 20 seconds to the Senator from Rhode Island.

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

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, climate change----

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment, as I understand it, is to prevent American jobs from being moved overseas. I think if we are serious about this, we may want to change our disastrous trade policies, which have led to the shutdown of thousands of factories in this country and millions of decent-paying jobs. In my view, at a time when we have an $18 trillion national debt, the last thing we need to do is to cut corporate taxes on profitable corporations that in many cases pay little or nothing in Federal taxes. We have major corporation after major corporation making billions of dollars. They pay zero in Federal income taxes. I don't quite know how you can lower their taxes below zero. We need real tax reform in this country that ends corporate loopholes that is costing us well over $100 billion a year. So I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. SANDERS. Frankly, I don't quite understand this amendment. This is what it says: This amendment would ``establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund'' to reaffirm that States can raise minimum wage while providing tax relief and eliminating excessive government mandates. States do not need permission from the Federal Government to raise the minimum wage. In fact, 29 States have already raised the minimum wage. And in the last election, when that question was on the ballot in four States, all four of those States voted to raise the minimum wage. People all over this country want us to raise the Federal minimum wage, which is now a starvation wage of $7.25 an hour. So this amendment, quite frankly, does not make a whole lot of sense to me. I would hope it will be defeated. States are looking to the Federal Government to raise the minimum wage. We don't have to tell them what to do. They are doing just fine.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, deciding whether to increase the debt limit is like putting purchases on your credit card and then deciding whether to pay the bill. Increasing the debt limit is not a license to take on more debt, it simply makes it possible to pay the bills we have already incurred. Recent history shows that leaving this to the last minute, and even coming close to hitting the debt limit, is extremely dangerous for our country and, in fact, the entire world. Even the remote possibility of default by the U.S. Government is enough to throw markets into turmoil and has resulted in credit rating agencies downgrading our credit worthiness. Unfortunately, in recent years some of my Republican colleagues have used raising the debt limit as a way to extract policy concessions that invariably include draconian cuts to programs that are important to working families and the middle class. This amendment continues that trend by making it even harder to raise the debt limit and thus easier----

Mr. SANDERS.--to cause an international panic. I urge colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. I object.

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