the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from wyoming, mr. barrasso, for himself and others, proposes amendment numbered 347 -- mr. barrasso: i ask reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you mr. president. mr. president, this amendment that was just called up and made pending deals with the regulation that the obama administration has proposed that would expand the clean water act. mr. president, the rule is an attempt to change the definition of what the law calls waters of the united states. the environmental protection agency and the army corps of engineers first proposed the rule last year and expect to have it finalized in the next few months. under this rule, the definitions of waters of the united states would include ditches would include dry areas where water flows only for a short period of time after it rains. federal regulations have never before listed ditches and other

man-made features as waters of the united states. this would be an alarming step and it would have a huge impact on farmers ranchers, families and small businesses all across america. people whose livelihood requires that they put a shovel in the ground would suddenly find it much more difficult to make a living. the rule would amount to a tax a tax on family farmers and ranchers to use their own land after it rains. these are people who just want to grow crops raise cattle, take care of their families, maybe even just enjoy their own backyard. mr. president, i hear this every weekend at home in wyoming and i heard about it today from students from lusk, wyoming. now washington bureaucrats would have a say in how all of these people use their property.

i oppose this rule and i'd like to see it scrapped entirely. that's why last year i introduced the protecting water and property rights act of 2014, to block the rule, to roll back this dangerous washington overreach. my bill had 38 cosponsors in the senate, members who heard from their constituents back home about how worried they were about this harmful new rule. we heard from business owners who told us that the uncertainty the rule creates only delays economic investment and delays job creation. well the environmental protection agency says that our concerns are overblown. the administration says that there's a lot of misunderstanding about what this regulation covers. gina mccarthy, the administrator of the environmental protection agency, she gave a speech last week. she said -- quote -- ," we're

not interested in the vast majority of ditches roadside ditches, irrigation ditches." she said "those were never covered." she also went on to say the age could have been, as she said "more crystal clear out of the gate about what they were and were not proposing." well mr. president my amendment would help make sure that this rule is crystal clear. it simply lists things that the environmental protection agency administrator and others in the obama administration have already said would not be -- would not be regulated under this proposed rule. that's it. my amendment would put limits on how the environmental protection agency or the army corps of engineers determine the extent of washington control. the limits would include not allowing the agencies to control water based on the movement of birds, mammals or insects. the amendment would prevent termations based on the movement

of water through the ground or the movement of rain water or snow melt over the land. finally my amendment would specifically say that federal jurisdiction under the water pollution control act does not extend to things like puddles isolated ponds roadside ditches and wastewater systems. the obama administration has said that it doesn't intend for its rules to cover any of these features. well this amendment spells it out. there will be no more room for uncertainty and no more room for misunderstandings. it will then be crystal clear. of course some people may not want the rule to be crystal clear. they may want to have some uncertainty in the rule. they may want to have unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats in washington to be able to change their mind and then go back on their word as

we've seen them do in the past about what the regulation covers and what it doesn't. if there is a senator here who favors that kind of uncertainty then they can vote against my amendment. as i said, i have been opposed to this rule from the very beginning. this amendment doesn't block the rule and it does nothing to prohibit the environmental protection agency or the army corps of engineers from regulating the true waters of the united states. it simply takes the administration at their word. if they say the rule is not meant to cover something this just spells it out. i urge senators to vote in favor of this amendment and i yield the floor. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: thank you mr. president. mr. president, i rise today -- before i begin my remarks could someone notify me when i've used

five minutes of time? the presiding officer: the senator will be so notified. mr. reed: thank you very much, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today in opposition to the budget resolution offered by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. this budget charts the wrong path for our nation. it doesn't spur economic growth or help the middle class because it doesn't p focus on creating high-quality jobs and boosting wages or reducing rising inequality and it fails to address the cuts the government investments that threaten our nation's economic and national security. instead this budget stacks the deck against middle class and stacks the deck in favor of special interests p by paving the way for huge tax give weas weas -- tax giveaways to powerful special interests and healthy americans. in order to balance the budget in ten years it relies on accounting gimmicks. it kicks millions off of health insurance rolls and dismantles

health care reform and ironically takes credit for all the savings that are part and parcel of the affordable care act all the while setting the stage for massive tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. and it would also put powerful special interests ahead of seniors by forcing medicare recipients to pay more for prescription drugs and preventive care. it doesn't provide adequate safeguards for social security and medicare. and by saying no to closing egregious tax loopholes it only increases pressure to cut programs for seniors and others frankly, we've been talking for years here in washington about the deficit. this budget proposal, my colleagues has a credibility deficit, in fact has a credibility deficit so that i think most of the observers and commentators are looking and saying that is impossible. no one is going to believe that

you can repeal the affordable care act but keep the saving. no one is going to believe you can do all these things and still continue to keep a straight face. so the credibility of the budget is i think highly questionable. we should have engaged in a balanced approach to growing our economy and our fiscal responsibility. and that balanced approach requires not only making wise reductions to spending but also it requires raising revenue. that's the way most government entities operate. mayors and governors, they have to do it and they do do it but here we're avoiding very difficult, tough choices. and it's obvious there are things that have to be done. they can't be wished away. look at our crumbling infrastructure. as you drive around rhode island in the northeast after a series of storms, it's the worst highway situation i think i recall in perhaps my lifetime but at least a long time.

potholes and disruptions all over our roads. americans expect that they'll be fixed but you can't fix it simply by wishing. you have to have the resources and investments to make those corrections. so as we go forward, it is important to go ahead and deal with all these issues in a balanced way not through creative accounting techniques but by difficult choices. programs that aren't working should be cut back. revenues should be provided for investment in this country. and that's what i think we should and we must do. i've been particular active with my colleague senator mccain on the armed services committee because the defense department has, is facing serious financial challenges. all of our service experts warn that if sequestration remains in place, if the affordable care -- excuse me. if the budget control act

remains in place together they will not provide the resources necessary to adequately fund the readyness, the marginalizeization of our forces and the welfare of our forces. admiral gortney, for example who is the commander of northcom made this point along with everyone else but he also went further to make the point that i think is critical when we talk about defense and non-defense spending. you cannot draw this bright line p between the department of defense and everybody else in terms of our national security. northcom, responsible for our security in the united states, depends upon border control agents at our border. they depend upon the department of homeland security. if that agency is not adequately funded if they're suffering from sequestration and through b.c.a. levels, we will not have the kind of national security we need. if it translates into further cuts of t.s.a. agents at our

airports, that will undermine our security. this notion that we can draw a nice, neat line between the department of defense and give them some more money through different techniques but ignore the other side of the equation, it doesn't work. one of the most significant examples comes from general john kelly of southern command. they have the capability through satellite imagery through other intelligence means to identify these fast boats coming out of south america that have drugs that might have human cargo terrorists possibly. knowing where they are and where they're headed is fine. but unless you have coast guard cutters to intercept them, you will not interdict this traffic. as a result, what you will have is a hole in our national security and the coast guard cutters come from the department of homeland security. so mr. president i know

there's been an effort to use the overseas con continuing is i fund -- contingency fund. senator graham in particular has been very, very aggressive with that. but i will try to explain later if not now there are limitations. this fund is directed at our operations against al qaeda and the taliban under authorization for use of military force. to try to stretch this to build facilities in alaska for missile defense, it's quite a stretch. that's not what o.c.o. was designed for. it has become a valiant effort to put more money in, but the reality is we have to face up, as senator mccain and i suggested in our letter to the budget committee and raise the baseline number for the department of defense to a total, at least to a total that avoids the sequestration or beyond. that's a realistic way to do it, and we have to pay for it. and the cuts, i don't think

should come out of non-defense to fund defense. this is an issue again, are you going to shortchange homeland security? are you going to shortchange other agencies that are critical to the defense of the united states? are you going to shortchange the people of the united states? i don't think we should. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the

senator from minority north carolina. a senator: mr. president what's the pending business? the presiding officer: the pending business is amendment number 347. mr. burr: mr. president i ask that the pending amendments be set aside in order for me to call up amendment 622. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from north carolina, mr. r burr, proposes an amendment numbered 622. mr. burr: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the amendment be accepted as read. mr. president, i rise today to offer a deficit-neutral reserve fund amendment to the budget that would allow the chairman of the budget committee to revise allocations to provide for simplified income-driven repayment program for federal student loans. this budget amendment is offered with the hope that it would allow for legislation to similar

to the repay act which i introduced earlier in this congress with senator king, senator alexander senator warner, senator shaheen senator ayotte and rubio capito, collins and carper. and let me spend just a moment, if i can telling my colleagues what the repay act would do. it's very simple. it would streamline the numerous loan repayment programs into two easily understood options for those who take out student loans. one, it would create a fixed repayment program similar to current law's ten-year standard repayment. two, it would create a new simplified income-driven repayment program that consolidates numerous income-based programs into one.

as we know today students that go to college have to take out a number of different loans and it's confusing in the system to know exactly what that repayment system looks like, especially for somebody who's trying to determine their job opportunities and the income that they need to meet their debt this allows that consolidation and simplification so students understand exactly what their exposure is almost from the beginning. students would be left with a very simple set of choices upon graduation. do i choose a fixed payment plan that will pay off my loans in straight ten years or do i take a simplified income-driven repayment plan and pay a little longer and have the remaining loan balance forgiven after 20 or 25 years depending upon whether it's undergraduate or graduate loans. now, this is important for a few

reasons, which i'll illustrate from quotes that have been made by many associations and of financial aid administrators who endorse the repay act. one, quote consolidating the various federal income-based programs into a single plan will help borrowers understand the benefits and protections inherent in our federal student loan system. two, and i quote despite many protections in existing repayment plans a frustrating number of student loan borrowers continue to default. this is due in part to the fact that the options require borrowers to take proactive and cumbersome steps to enroll, unquote. and the last three -- quote -- this proposal to collapse the different plans into one single income-based repayment plan should help ease the enrollment process for borrowers unquote.

not only does this sort out the repayment obligations in a a student -- that a student has it makes the enrollment easier, and this comes from the individuals who are responsible for the implementation of these programs. now, those quotes are from associations representing financial and administrators across the country. they are people who are on the front lines of helping students as they prepare for payment after college. we should listen to them, and i say that strongly to my colleagues we should listen to them. the other benefits of this legislation is that students will know prior to entering college, based on the amount that they borrow, what options will be available to them once they graduate from college. i know that seems like common sense to a lot of folks but if you haven't been through the student loan process today then you don't realize that they don't have that clarity today as

they enter college that this will allow them to have. this will promote better consumer behavior. it will lessen the chance students default based upon a confusion of the viable options that they have available to them. now, i would think from policymakers our intent would always be does the plan fit the need of the individual it's targeted for? clearly, the student loan program does. but two have we done this in a way that's simple, understandable and workable? because if we can't answer that question and we don't check that box, the likelihood is the net result is that we have defaults, individuals who don't live up to repaying their obligation. when a student graduates they face up to 12 repayment options available to them, all with some overlapping purpose or benefit and with great complexity in how you actually sign up for the

options. again, the repayment act two options. ten-year straight repayment or a repayment that's structured based upon what your income is. now, senator king and i think this makes for good policy, the repay act but we think it makes for bad policy to have 12 cumbersome options that overlap in some cases. now, based upon preliminary scores from c.b.o. and estimates from president obama since he's proposed much of what we do in the repay act we believe the legislation will save in the area of $4 billion over the next ten years. and $1 billion to $2 billion over the next five. that's up to $6 billion in savings in the student loan program that we could pump back in to additional loan value for students in the future. now, unlike other options that we have that we will be voting

on today that cost money and pay for it by raising taxes we save money by making our program more efficient and better suited for students' needs. so mr. president for my colleagues who might be asking how do i vote on this, i've got -- i've got to tell you you've got to wait to have a comparison bill. there will be one. and i want you to ask yourself which one saves $4 billion and which one costs more money. which one uses the allocations that are currently there and which one raises taxes to put in place a new plan. this amendment and the repay act is bipartisan, overwhelmingly so and if the bipartisan list of cosponsors to the repay act

isn't enough, many of the recommendations that are formed in this legislation came from the president's very own budget. this legislation also has the support of the education financial council the american council on education the national association of student aid administrators, as well as the university of north carolina system, which is important to me since i represent north carolina. so in short this amendment represents legislation that is, one, bipartisan, two saves money, three is based on the ideas and proposals of the president, and four, has the support of the industry who's responsible for the success of student loan programs. success means easy enrollment.

success means repayment of the outstanding debt. so with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and urge my colleagues, when given the opportunity, vote for amendment 622, a bipartisan-sponsored initiative. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: thank you mr. president. i would ask the chair to notify me when six minutes is consumed. the presiding officer: the senator will be so notified. mr. udall: thank you mr. president. last week, the senate budget committee gave a green light to the republican budget, a caution light, a yellow light was more in order. it calls for $4.7 trillion in nondefense spending cuts over the next ten years and no increases in revenue. where would those cuts come from? they would be piled on the backs of the middle class the elderly and children.

they would cut the earned income tax credit, slash medicare and medicaid, child care, head start, education public safety, law enforcement and just for good measure the republican budget rolls back reforms on wall street, and on and on. all this and more to pay for lower taxes for millionaires and billionaires. when i first came to the senate, our economy was in a freefall. we were losing 20,000 jobs a day, every day thousands of jobs gone. our financial system was crashing. deficits were at historic highs. that was six years ago. it has been a long road back. we asked the wealthy to pay their fair share. we passed long-needed reforms to wall street. we've seen 12 million more private sector jobs. the deficit cut in half. wall street at historic highs.

profits are up. unemployment and deficits are down. that is the story but it isn't over. we're not done yet. not everyone has found solid ground. my state still faces great challenges. many new mexicans are still struggling still pulling out of the worst recession in 75 years. how do we go forward? how do we build on the progress we have made? that's the questions the voters elected us to solve. the short answer is we have to work together. we have to get past the shutdowns and the showdowns. politics is the art of standing your ground but also finding common ground. that's why the republican budget is so troubling. it doesn't start a conversation. it doesn't reach across the aisle. this budget is bad for working

families, bad for the middle class, bad for our economy. it makes a u-turn right back to failed policies of the past. this budget says no to the middle class no to the most vulnerable, no to the critical investments we know we need, but yes to lower taxes for hedge funds. it is robin hood in reverse and it will hurt so many people who have suffered so much for so long. this is the wrong way to go at the worst possible time, because make no mistake about it, this budget is one big yes for those at the top and one big no for everybody else. in my state one in three children are in poverty. for native american children, it's even higher. it's 44%. one in five children goes to bed hungry. their parents can't find adequate child care.

they can't get quality medical care when they need it. they lack access to safe housing and clean water. this just isn't the case. in new mexico, we see it across the nation, children and families falling behind. this has to change. the future, not just for our children, but for our economy depends on changing it. we need to be doing more but the republican budget does less. it would cut programs for low-income children, seniors and families, up to $660 billion over ten years including snap and child nutrition programs. healthy kids are an investment in our future economy. we need renewed commitment, not draconian cuts, to the programs that help children reach their full potential. that means infant and toddler care preschool and home visiting programs.

we know that they work and they can help in a big way. a recent white house report tells the story. these programs make a difference get results and save money. more than $8 for every dollar invested. that's why i introduced the saving our next generation act. we call it the song act. we should fully pay for what work. that's why i am a cosponsor of the pre-k act to expand high quality early learning programs for children from birth to age 5. children should be our priority. they should not take a back seat to billionaires. neither should the elderly who depend on medicare, not a voucher program. the republican budget cuts $2.5 trillion from health care for low and moderate income people. repealing the affordable care act, block granting medicaid,

seniors would pay more for prescription drugs and more for preventative services. crucial support for nursing care and home health care would be slashed. we have a lot to do to get america's economy back on track. the republican budget at every turn fails to do it. a budget isn't just numbers. it's about choices and it's about priorities. that means investing in infrastructure. we have to upgrade our roads and manage our water resources. federal dollars are almost half of new mexico's total transportation budget and 70% of the funding for our highways and bridges. it means making sure we have an educated work force not cutting pell grants by 30%. the presiding officer: the senator has consumed six minutes. mr. udall: thank you mr. president. and i would ask that my statement be inserted in the record as if spoken. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: thank you very much,

and yield the floor. i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reed: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the calling of the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: mr. president, i would ask consent to speak for up to two minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. on behalf of senator warner i ask permission to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment 652. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from rhode island for ms. warren proposes amendments 652. mr. reed: i ask consent further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: thank you mr. president. mr. president, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

# quorum call: mr. isakson: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: i ask to be recognized for up to one minute. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: i ask unanimous consent that the senate resume consideration of s. con res. 11 following the joint meeting at the time time of 12:15 today be equally divided between the managers or their designees and that at 12:15 the senate vote in relation to the following amendments in the order listed and no second-degree amendments in order prior to those votes. burr number 622 warner number 652. i further ask consent that there be two minutes equally divided between the managers or their designees prior to each vote. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. isakson: for the information of all senators there will be up to two roll call votes at 12:15 today and i

yield back and note the absence of a quorum. i withhold from the quorum. the presiding officer: under the previous order the senate stands in recess subject to the call of the chair. >> and the senate in recess now so members can attend a joint meeting with the house to hear from the president of afghanistan. later on the 2016 gop budget resolution and votes on amendments are possible. right now let's take it a briefing underway under way for about 50 minutes by house and senate democrats on that vote. >> how much colleagues support so people have to pay more for tuition. how big a tax break for the wealthy should be a all of this will become front and center in front of the american people. it is in the budget act because they hide. 900 billion in cuts they don't say happened, things like that.

there will be debate over whether to use reconciliation to jack up the cost of health care for millions of americans or to the tax cut in favor of huge corporations. and at the end of the tunnel of the budget process, republicans won't find a life. they will be finding a freight train heading the other way. in short republicans are at war with each other. they're trying to paper over those differences now drive even greater disagreement, more public disagreements more specific disagreements later. and it's the middle class taxpayers getting caught in the crossfire. unfortunately, this fight is only beginning. >> thank you senator.

great to be with my colleagues, senate and house with her two leaders on the budget matters. it's pretty clear, the budget is simply a declaration of different priorities. the american people are british at fort about what their priorities are. give me the chance to by house. let me believe i can send my kids to college and get a chance to save up enough money so i can, as steve said enjoy your retirement. pretty straightforward. unfortunately, i don't think most americans would say we are going to strip 69 americans with health insurance that that helps them with that security that they're looking for. i don't think most singlets after working for years and years that privatizing medicare and 50 way to guarantee that they worked so hard to earn leads to that security. and beyond even the budget discussion as we could talk about how you can take what the

republicans are doing and senator durbin mentioned and cutting our investment in health care research like alzheimer's disease, but if you take a look at what we about to do in the house of representatives today in the ways and means committee we're about to mark up legislation that would provide a 227 going dollars and paid for tax cut -- $227 million. out of the 320 million americans live in this country thousand not 6 million, 6000 americans will get a tax cut that was about $270 in cost over the next 10 years, and paid for. we are talking about a budget, a republican budget that would essentially take away so many of the services we depend on but if you add to that what you planning to do with tax breaks for the wealthiest americans, $227 billion, dick durbin was concerned about the cuts to the

national institute of health budget under this republican budget. if you have to try to pay for the $227 billion pay for taxes for the wealthiest 6000 americans, then you have to move the entire national institute of health budget for the next 10 years. you would have to got every single penny we spent for school nutrition programs for the next 10 years for some 31 million children in america depend on school breakfast school lunch come summer lunch programs throughout america. you would have to take about three quarters of all the money we are going to put a distance want to go to college through pell grant out of action, take it away completely. if you want to cover the cost of the $227 billion tax cut for 6000 of the wealthiest americans in the country. and so this is real stuff. i doubt that these are the priorities of the american people but that's a we seem being advanced today in the

house and the senate by our colleagues on the republican side, a budget that would not only hurt american but certainly make it almost impossible for them to live out their priorities of owning a home sending their kids to college, and having a secure retirement after years of work. we need to do much better. >> questions? >> do you come up with republican divisions over raising war funding and whether or not offset, given those divisions do you think that gives democrats a president obama more leverage in negotiating potential budget deal later? >> absolutely. >> and why? >> well, see i don't think the republicans, they may be able to paper over the differences in the budget process which is a 10,000-foot process. it will not be able to paper over their divisions when it gets, comes to appropriations when even comes to reconciliation, things like that. they will have real trouble and so the fact that they are

divided on the have two factions, a defense hawk faction and a budget hawk action is going to play very badly for them down the road. >> this is the first time i've ever seen the chairman of the house budget committee giving to republican budget to the floor price one and price too. i don't know which price is right but from our perspective they're both wrong and i will tell you why. they both you know they both essentially play games with how we fund defense. you should do in a straight up manner. >> after this budget process is over the next up is due -- i'm wondering what your member card with our for spending bills in terms of -- >> one minimum required that we all have is that we certainly

2, we don't want to stay at sequestration levels and we want the increases to be a 50/50 level. for every dollar of defense there is 1 dollar of nondefense. >> given republicans have a much going in opposite direction do you think it could be possible if a showdown? >> that will be up to them. day, i think that they are hard right which just went through a dhs fight where they kept walking into a wall and i have a feeling they will end up doing the same thing when we get into the appropriations process. >> do you believe the senate will end up passing -- [inaudible] >> absolutely, yes, it is. and there was no talk about it on the list of the seven changes they sent there is members. it was not listed. that's number one. number two, we feel very

strongly that the provision that senator cornyn added on trafficking is a real violation, and expansion of the hyde amendment. it for the first time, the rationale is if you're strongly antichoice, pro-life, you'd want to see your tax dollars go to something you find a boring. but in the cornyn bill is not tax dollars, it's find. and to expand it that way just opens the door wide open and democrats i think in both the house and the senate feel very strongly that that is a bad provision and should not be in there. >> is there a fast-forward? >> we will see but it won't be one that opens the door the way does in the wicker cornyn amendment. >> change the subject but different why hasn't the pro-choice caucus and house, -- [inaudible] ndu think that deal will get

democratic support? >> we are just saying it. they have been put on it yet. i don't know if they brought before the rules committee yet so we're just looking at it now. do we like it? know. isn't as severe as the provision in the trafficking bill? no. so we will see where we come out. >> there's been a lot of talk lately -- [inaudible] >> well, their premise to just go for defense is not a viable option. as for whether it might work if it's 50/50 i'm not sure they would see it that way. we certainly would insist on it that way and whether that's the best way to go i do know. i would defer to my budget committee colleagues on that. >> there will be i believe an amendment today or tomorrow. one of the reasons that we have $18 trillion national debt is

under president bush the republicans took us to the war in iraq and against and they forgot to pay for those wars. the deficit hawks want to cut health care and afford will housing and the needs of working people college affordability, they had to cut those programs. when you go to war india spend trillions, apparently there's no need to offset that are as for higher taxes. there will be an amendment coming up that i strong support that says and i sort help able to every i can to make sure there's not another war, but if you're going to spend money on wars, you know what, the american people have to know that they are not free. they are quite expensive and have to be paid for. so we will be centaur republican collects if you're planning for another war you're going to to pay for it. you can put on the credit card. >> thanks everybody. [inaudible conversations]

>> a quick reply to this senate is in recess. james kobak is on capitol hill today. he testifies about his agency's budget proposal to go get the house the protections subcommittee and will have live coverage on c-span3 starting at 1 p.m. eastern time. up next hearing on the commercial use of unmanned aircraft system, known as drones. represent is from the federal aviation administration amazon.com the government accounted office and the national telecommunications and information administration talk about safety and privacy the state of innovation and economic impact for the agricultural sector. the senate transportation committee held this hearing yesterday.

>> i want to call the hearing to order. i want to welcome our witnesses here today. appreciate all of you being here. before and offer any of our opening statements news is the coming and i want to acknowledge the tragedy in europe this morning and my thoughts go out to the friends and families of those who are affected. we will be monitoring this as the situation develops behind all of us are very sad to hear about this tragedy. with that appreciate all of you being here today. and i want to thank you because today's hearing represents the second of an active spring schedule including a series of hearings in preparation for this years federal aviation administration reauthorization

effort as the agencies authorization expired september of this year. for years, unmanned aircraft systems, uas commands also sometimes more properly called drones have been identified with fighting terrorism abroad. and i appreciated the important work that this technology has been used in terms of protecting our country. today's hearing is not about the military use of drones but the commercial recreational and public utilizatiutilizati on of a new typed object that represents much promise. there has been great interest in this technology and its potential on the homefront. for example unmanned aircraft have countless civil and public applications, just to name a few. they could assist in further precision and agriculture methods. they can conduct routine operations like you to design

inspections that are expensive and sometimes dangerous. when individuals do those on their own. they could enhance law enforcement and homeland security when used appropriately appropriately. and protection of civil liberties. they could empower creative filmmakers. they could enable faster newsgathering. they could bring sports action even closer to viewers. and they may say lives in search and rescue operations such as that are often required in new hampshire's legendary mount washington and some of the difficult rescue missions that have been done in our white mountain national forest. there's a great deal of potential for unmanned aircraft in america and reports estimate that uas integration could yield tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs and tens of billions of dollars for positive economic impact which all of us of course welcome to our economy. we want america to be the location of innovation, but at the same time we have to look at

this new technology and ability and balancing other important considerations that we have in this country. we cannot sacrifice safety, privacy or prudent use of this new technology consistent with existing laws that we have and standards that we expect from people. these principles are not mutually exclusive. this hearing is an opportunity to learn more about how all of this fits together. we hear from, today, we have heard previously as i've scheduled is hearing from either operators that are worried we are falling behind competing nations that integration has been slow. the faa has granted dozens of exemptions allowing for the commercial use of unmanned systems, but the list of those waiting in line is still law. however an faa announced a new

interim policy to speed up authorizations today, and additionally best practices and opportunities for testing uas technologies are incomplete. the faa's designation test sites have potential that are yet to be fully realized. as with any new technology incorporation requires thoughtful work and caution, particularly when it involves our national airspace system. the most complex aviation system in the world, there's great potential here but it must be managed directly. the faa's proposed rule published last month is a meaningful step in that direction. access as expanded by the proposed restrictions would not open the door unfettered to the use of unmanned systems. potential operators may be disappointed by limitations imposed by this proposed rule. however, it is important that this rule is designed to be the next step at the faa is looking ahead to identify future areas

to enable uas usage. at any stage of uas integration am a primary consideration has to be safety. we have all seen reports of uas being flown recklessly either near commercial aircraft, including the airport i regulate use in manchester, new hampshire, and dangerous proximity to people or land in sensitive areas like we heard the white house lawn. no doubt as this fledgling industry expansion of the more growing pains but thoughtful policy making initiate action to ensure the lowest risk to people and property. in addition to safety rules the support of an ongoing dialogue about unmanned aircraft will impact our lives and our expectations. in furtherance of that objective, the national telecommunications and information administration is engaging stakeholders to consider best practices to address issues of privacy, transparency and accountability.

it is to easy cure-all but having concerned parties at the table developing ways to respect these considerations while enabling utilization of potential consultative technology is a worthy endeavor. mr. morris from ntia is here to provide information on this multi-stakeholder process. it's no surprise that a think we can all understand that one of the primary concerns that people have about the use of these unmanned systems is privacy. unlimited surveillance by government or private actors is that something the that our society is ready or willing or should accept. because uas can significantly lower the threshold for observation, the risk of abuse at the risk of abuse of surveillance increases oh from the government side and also in the way that private individuals can interact with each other. mothers existing legal framework that may respond to some of these concerns, their application to unmanned aircraft

pushes the boundaries and requires more attention and analysis and a look forward hearing from all of you today about how you think we can best address these privacy concerns. i also want to point out that unmanned aircraft are not unique in their ability. we do have other means where people are using telephoto lenses to allow observation at great distances and other means of technology to observe other people as well. but here today want it about how we can best address the privacy concerns for these unmanned systems. this hearing get a chance to explore many of these important questions but i look forward to hearing because we today as well as the comments of my colleagues, and i want to thank my ranking member, senator cantwell, and turn it over to her. >> thank you, madam chair, and thank you for scheduling this thing. and i would like to start offer my condolences to the loved ones, the passengers and crew from german wings flight 9525.

our thoughts and prayers are with them in this incredible tragedy. i would like to welcome our witnesses today and thank them for testified on such an important subject as unmanned aircraft systems and certainly appreciate the depth and breadth of expertise that is represented on the panel today. i look forward to hearing what each of you have to say about this area and i'm reminded that i think it was to faa bill discussions ago we had similar discussions about defense and other applications as it related to the faa and unmanned aerial vehicles at that point in time, a small company in my state was trying to figure out to move forward in cooperation with the faa internet companies more than 800 people. so this industry has continued to grow and so today we are here

to talk about the integration of unmanned aerial systems that require a balancing act between the safety of our skies which we cannot and will not come from us and the many possible is enabled by unmanned systems such as fighting wildfires, expecting bridges and railroads, pipelines aiding farmers, monitoring our borders, or simply delivering something as important as a new seattle seahawks jersey. we all suffered from our constituents and local businesses about innovative solutions to existing problems or want to develop new markets using unmanned aerial system technology. unfortunately, many of us have also heard from companies who've had to move research or testing overseas that they're unable to receive the necessary permission from u.s. regulators in a timely fashion. american engineers and manufacturers will lead the way if we give them the ability to conduct the research and develop it and i hope this panel can take the input here and help us move forward on how we do that. does small unmanned system rule

proposed by the faa in favor is an important step forward that technological advancement will not slow down why we determine how to dress a new set of challenges but for the most part these challenges come in maintaining the safety of our airspace, the safety of people and property on the ground. and while the faa proposal includes a robust analysis of commercial unmanned aerial systems cost benefits and concerns, there are issues that remained about noncommercial users in the recreational community. the number of pilots reporting near misses with these unmanned systems around airports at altitudes well above the 400 feet speaks to the existing problem which will only grow as technology becomes less expensive and more widely available. some have suggested we allow technological solutions to meet the demand created by technological problems and employed geo- fencing around

airports in sensitive areas such as the white house to prevent reckless behavior or unintentional violations of airspace. this approach which change the paradigm of aviation which had blood on self regulation by pilots, but it is something i'm sure will be explored today. is also good news for safety because unmanned systems have the potential to save lives by performing dangerous task, as the chairman was just mentioning. virtually all industries such as inspecting powerlines or accessing damage after a fire with many natural disasters we have in the pacific northwest could all be dated by these technology solution. according to the department of labor, or thousand 400 workers died on the job in 2013 not all could've been prevented by unmanned systems but we have a responsibility to continue to improve worker safety and some of these could be performed in other ways. many of the commercial unmanned systems that the faa has already

approved our for uses that promote worker safety. so i encourage the faa to look at that as particular in this rulemaking. as the chairwoman said, today the faa just advanced and in trouble policy. that interim policy, a blanket certification of the section 333 would streamline the process so that 200 below 200 feet would be easier process for people to proceed with these technology. i applaud the faa in that move. while we wait a final unmanned system rule which i'm not sure exactly when how long that will take him i'm sure we'll have questions about that, i want to make sure that we are keeping that timeframe in mind. because i do think american compass a face with competitive disadvantage because of the slow pace of regulation that several governments across the world are working hand-in-hand with

commercial unmanned systems operators to find solutions where businesses can thrive with existing new technology and also maintain the safety of airspace while they operate. so i want to make sure the u.s. stays mindful of that to being a home for this great technology. another subject that i look forward to discussing here is the issue of privacy including how this new technology will fit into our existing privacy laws and that we can protect private citizens and businesses from this unwanted surveillance. some of the privacy debate is intertwined with larger discussions about data protection and security as well as tracking. so i hope that we'll be able to address these issues today and i believe this hearing is an important step towards the faa's authorization bill which the chairwoman and i are working together with the chairman of the full committee and ranking member now since i hope we can continue to move these bills forward. thank you. >> i want to thank senator cantwell, and most of all

welcome our panel of witnesses today and thank you for being here and for taking the time to talk about this important topic before our committee. first, i would like to welcome ms. margaret gilligan. ms. gilligan is the associate administrator or aviation safety at the federal aviation administration. thank you, ms. gilligan. >> i would like to thank the chair, senator a outcome and the ranking member senator cantwell and members of the subject of opportunity to be here today. before beginning my testimony i would like to express our condolences to those who were affected by today's tragic accident. both the national transportation safety board and the faa are standing by to assist in this investigation in any way that we can. we are here today to discuss the safe integration of unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system. this technology holds huge

potential and can be applied to wide range of uses. but the belgian also introduces new risk into the aviation system. as uas technologies continued to dance at a rapid pace to challenge is to develop a regulatory framework that will allow for continued innovation while ensuring the safety of other users of the airspace and people and property on the ground. since the 2012 faa reauthorization act we've made progress and we've learned a lot along the way. the faa put forward a comprehensive plan and defied your roadmap to save the accelerate the integration of civil uas. we have an aggressive research program that leverages the assets of our interagency partners and industry to overcome some of the largest barriers to uas integration such as detection and avoid technologies and standards. the six ues test sites were selected in 2013 to aid in integration are fully operational and to establish the research agendas. the fa technical central -- center is receiving data from the test sites that will help

answer some of the key questions about how unmanned aircraft can interface with air traffic control. the texan is working closely with the test sites to identify the day that we most useful to the faa. to the celtic commercial integration with issued over 60 exemptions under section 333 of the 2012 act. these operations do not pose a risk to others operating, to the general public or to the national security. they can be safely conducted by uas without air worthiness certificate. we learned a lot in a process of approving these extensions and we're working hard to increase efficiency and decrease processing time for these requests. the faa has issued restrictive category type certificates to to uas so they can conduct flights for commercial purposes in the arctic. we've issued 176 special airworthiness certificates in the experiment the category for civil uas operations, 34 of those approvals are active

today. these approvals associate research and develop crew training and market surveys. last month we proposed a rule that would allow routine use of small unmanned aircraft systems for commercial purposes without air worthiness certificate or certificate of waiver or authorization for the use of airspace. the proposed rule would cover many the central small uas operations and offers a flexible framework for the safe use of these systems while accounting future innovation in the industry. with this proposal the united states would have one of those flexible uas regulatory frameworks in the world. as uas operations in the system increase we are reaching out to educate the public on the safe and responsible use of uas. the faa provide a model aircraft enthusiast guidance on the do's and don'ts of safeguard aircraft operations. we have partnered with members of the industry and modeling committee to initiate to know before you fly campaign to promote safe and responsible uas

operation. the faa is working to position law enforcement to deter, detect, investigate and report unauthorized or unsafe operations. while our first action is to educate uas operators about compliance, when appropriate we will and we have used administrative or legal enforcement action. issuing a final rule for small uas operations is a top priority for the faa. we are looking beyond that will making to identify additional types of operations and what i don't use we may need to certify. the faa has consulted with the uas aviation rulemaking committee for recommendations for enabling uas operations at the highest societal benefits. these recommendations will result in additional focused areas that will become the centerpiece of faa's plans for uas integration. as industry and system grow more complex we must ensure that our resources are directed to the air is at the highest safety was be we will need to expand collaborative data-driven processes that the industry to

improve safety and streamline certification. to reach these objectives we're developing a new advisory circular to inform the u.s. industry how do you risk-based decision-making established certification criteria. this is essential for enabling the certification of larger uas for operation. the faa is safely and steadily integrating uas into an affidavit continue to look to the future to make sure the proper framework and standards are in place to facilitate safe integration in an increase of a complex airspace system. we look forward to continue to work with our partners in government the aviation community and this committee to make steady progress toward that goal. this concludes my statement. i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you very much. i now would like to introduce mr. john morris. mr. morris is the associate administrator for the office of policy analysis and develop at the national telecommunications and information administration

ordonez ntia. thank you for being here mr. morris. [inaudible] >> on? okay, let's start over. chairman, ranking member cantwell, members thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding ntia's upcoming multi-stakeholder process to enhance privacy transparency and accountability and the use of commercial and private unmanned aircraft systems, or uas. ntia is eventual vice of the president on committee patience and information policy issues. our focus from is not on aircraft systems but on increasing broadband access and adoption come on expanding spectrum opportunities and ensuring that the internet remains an engine for continued innovation and economic growth. but increasingly our internet policy work has focused on

enhancing consumer privacy in order to strengthen the trust and consumer adoption of new and evolving technologies. and the critical method of developing flexible and effective policy is to the multi-stakeholder approach. in this model stakeholders work together to reach consensus on best practices and codes of conduct that can be implemented in the marketplace. stakeholders can include private industry, consumer groups, academics and others with an interest in the epic the hallmark is that they're open, transparent and consensus-based. ntia's role in multi-stakeholder processes is as the convener and facilitate a stakeholder discussion. we are not a regular in this area and we do not substitute our judgment for those of the stakeholders. we have used and are using the multi-stakeholder approach in a wide range of policy areas including privacy, online

copyright and cybersecurity. the february memoranda on uas called ntia to convene a process to bring it is you so is you civil society from technical experts, academics and others together to craft best practices that address the very important issues of privacy transparency and accountability in the commercial and privacy arena. in early march india issued a request for comment seeking public input from the structure of a multi-stakeholder goals but passionate engagement and on the substantive issues that stakeholders will discuss. ntia seeks input on questions that good friend of multi-stakeholder discussions including just as some examples, what uas enabled commercial services raise the most pressing privacy challenges? what best practices would mitigate privacy challenges while supporting innovation? what information should

commercial uas operators make public, and how best should that information be made public? how can uas operators ensure that their operations comply with the relevant policies and best practices? and importantly are there different policy issues raised by different aircraft sizes and different commercial uses? comments on these and other questions are due on april 20 and we expect to convene the first public meeting later this spring to ntia will use the comments it received help establish an efficient and effective structure for the multi-stakeholder engagement. we encourage all individuals and entities that have interest in these important issues to submit comments and we will certainly encourage them to participate in the multi-stakeholder meetings as well. we hope the stakeholders will work collaboratively then if i safeguard that address the private account affiliate transparency challenges posed by commercial and private uas use. ntia is pleased to contribute to

the ministrations efforts to ensure that the integration of uas into the national airspace take into account not only public safety and economic competitiveness but also the privacy and civil liberties issues that these systems may raise. thank you again for the opportunity to participate in today's hearing and i look forward to answering any questions you may have. >> thank you mr. morris. i would like to welcome dr. gerald dillingham here today. dr. dillingham is the director of civil aviation issues at the u.s. government accountability office better known as the gao. think you dr. dillingham. >> thank you, madam chairman ranking member cantwell, members of the subcommittee. since the early 1990s uas have operate on a limited basis in the national airspace system. primarily supporting the military and border security. as the chair and the ranking minority member said this morning in their remarks, the list of potential uses is now

rapidly expanding and the economic impact of uas integration into the net has been as they do grow to more than $82 billion by 2025. as ms. gilligan testified faa has taken steps towards integration including establishing a six test sites the most recent issuing for small uas but there's more work to be done. my statement today focuses on three areas from moving forward with uas integration. first the status of the faa designated uas si. second, how other countries are integrating uas into airspace for commercial purposes, and third, critical next steps for integration. regarding this test sites come in december 2014 we reported with problems with the working relationship and communications between faa and the test site. for several some of the operators reported they were not receiving adequate value from

faa on the kind of research needed to support integration or how it should be reported. more recently officials at faa and some test sites oldest the situation had improved in part because both faa and the sites have a dedicated effort to work together directed to such as biweekly meetings and information sharing about research needs. continued coordination will be important to ensuring that the test sites produce the data that supports standard development or uas integration. with regard to international uas activity, our work shows a number of countries allow commercial uas operations have done so for years. for example, australia and canada have had uas regulations in place for a decade or more. my written statement contains the table with the regulatory requirements among for selected countries and the u.s. and showing common traits and differences. one key difference is that in these other countries that

generally have a different legal structure than the u.s. which may allow more flexibility in the development of regulations. second, these countries have less general aviation and commercial air traffic and a much less complex airspace which means there's a lower risk of uas collisions with a manned aircraft. however, if uas works against flying today under faa's proposed rules they would operate under restrictions that are very similar to regulations in these four countries with some notable exceptions. for example, canada relies more heavily on a risk management approach to allow more uas commercial operations than the u.s. going forward, faa still needs to take several critical steps to maintain the current momentum towards integration. these steps include the following, first, faa must develop a detailed application

plan that would identify the activities resources and schedules which can also serve as a means to old faa accountable. second, faa should continue the process to process the comments it receives on the nprm and issue a final rule for small uas operations as soon as possible. to date there've been more than 1000 comments submitted with thousands more expected. faa estimates this process will likely not be completed until late 2016 or early 2017. third, faa must continue its efforts to make the test sites useful, including working with the operators to identify incentives to encourage greater activities at the site. fourth, in concert with uas industry, faa should consider expanding the public education campaign on permissible and save uas operations which could begin to ease concerns about privacy

and safety. and final faa wanted to be sure that the integration of uas is closely coordinated with the develop of the next generation air traffic system. thank you, madam chair, ranking member cantwell, and members of the subcommittee. that completes my oral statement. >> thank you dr. dillingham. i want to welcome professor turn 11. professor villasenor is a nonresident senior fellow at the brookings institution. thank you, professor, for being here today. >> thank you very much. good afternoon, i appreciated the opportunity to testify today on this very important topic. i'm a nonresident senior fellow at the brookings institution brookings institution am also a national fellow at the hoover institution at stanford and am on the faculty at ucla. it is i'm expressing here are my own and are not necessary those of the brookings institution, stanford or ucla.

on going to devote my marks to the importation of privacy. it's importance of acknowledging the privacy is a very legitimate concern for the first time ever on that aircraft systems are making it easy and inexpensive to think overhead imagery. the '01 majority u.s. operators in both the public and private sectors will be michael need to respect privacy. but thousand of uas groove users increase and as imaging tech delta continues to improve, simple test is to make it inevitable that sometimes either inadvertent or intentionally uas will be used in ways that violate privacy. that raises a key question. to what extent are our current legal framework up to the task of addressing uas privacy? i believe our existing legal framework will provide substantially more protection is privacy violating misuses of uas than is common recognize. that doesn't mean there's no need for new privacy laws. we need a full appreciation for the power of the law we already have the the applicable framework for privacy of uas depends in large part on who is

making the observation. for u.s. opry by the government, the fourth amendment is a key pillar. for privately operated, protections are provided to common law as was through civil and criminal invasion of privacy statutes. i will start with the fourth amendment and government uas. it is suggested that because the fourth amendment is ratified over two ages ago it will not be effective in providing protection for privacy violations using uas. technology that the founders could have scarcely imagine. i disagree. the review of the supreme court's jurisprudence in relation to other technologies provide cause for optimism that the fourth amendment will prove to be protected with respect to uas as well. i will and three supreme court cases related to technology although not specifically to i met aircraft in 2001 the supreme court ruled against the government when the government used without a word thermal imager to measure the temperature of walkabouts and

thereby infer that marijuana was being grown inside the house. in 2012 united states versus jones, the court again ruled against the government. the decision involved the installation and use of a gps tracker on a carpet the majority opinion in that case was based on the very narrow act of physical trespass involving installing a gps tracker but indirectly with respect to this issue today there were two conferences involving a total of five justices in which they expressed great skepticism about the constitutional concerns relating, they're very skeptical of the government's behavior and suggested that tracking someone for weeks on end with technology without a warrant would, in fact, raises constitutional concerns. most recently in 2014 and riley v. california the government the court ruled against the government instead with conducting a search police did not do have the right to search the contents of a mobile phone without a worker chief justice

roberts explained with respect to mobile phone technology quote the fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does that make information any less worthy of protection for which the founders thought, closed quote. thus the court is on record recognizing that despite the unimaginable technological changes that occurred since the constitution was written quote the protections which the founders fought closed quote remains a central tenet of applying for the fourth amendment. it has direct relevance to privacy from government unmanned aircraft system. i will talk about non-government aircraft in privacy. private entities are not bound by the fourth amendment restrictions that apply to government and have an affirmative first amendment privilege to gather information. while the privileged extensive it ends when it crosses into an invasion of privacy. there are both common-law and statutory frameworks that was certified as a private entity violates. in closing i would emphasize importance of first amendment

rights and consistency. consider a law that might prevent a u.s. operated from photographing private property without permission. that would be protected but it is easy to see how this could lead to serving the unintended consequence of the diesel demonstrate my be told they're not permitted to use a uas to film a demonstration on the ground of the footage might include adjacent buildings owned by people who disagreed with the viewpoint. in closing without diminishing the import of uas privacy issue i think it's important to recognize the production over to pick some of the best protections may lie not in statutory text, drafted with the keen eye on the latest innovation of unmanned aircraft technology but in constitutional text drafted over 200 is ago. i look forward to questions. thank you. >> thank you professor. i want to welcome mr. paul misener. mr. misener is the vice president of global public policy at amazon incorporated. thank you. >> thank you, chairwoman and ranking member cantwell, for

your attention to this very important topic for holding this hearing and for inviting me to testify. amazon is a future service that will deliver packages to customers in 30 bits or less using small uas. flying below 500 feet and gym about 200 feet and weighing less than 55 pounds. prime their uas will take their specific edits instead of which i don't as was i degree of automation to ensure safe automation including at distances of 10 miles or more, well beyond the line of sight. amazon prime interest in conducting flight test in multiple locations abroad in our testing process required minimal aviation radar for approval. nowhere outside of the united states have we been required to wait more than one or two months to begin testing information is encrypted for operating a category of you is giving us from to expand and expand and perfect designs without being required to continue a thing new approvals for specific uas vehicles. outdoor flight testing is going well and we're very pleased with

the progress testing his new. no country which we now have ditch these facilities yet adopted rules that would allow commercial uas package deliveries so in addition to our testing we are working with government agencies to develop appropriate roles for small uas operations. such rules must allow uas applications big event of the portability of the technology to fly with minimal human involvement beyond visual line of sight. safety is amazon's top priority and earlier this month i discuss uas safety with europe's most senior leaders of aviation regulation. i'm delighted to report these authorities are enthusiastically pursuing writing short frameworks and operational roles for uas. the approach they're taking is imminently reasonable. uas rules should be simple and performance-based and the basic framework should be put in place without delay. american commercial entities want to innovate and perfect uas technology. to do so we must conduct r&d testing to amazon has a large

indoor r&d facility in downtown seattle. but, of course, we need to satisfy and test these designs outdoors, exposed to slight impatience we will experience in operations. we are very grateful to the faa for granting us permission to conduct u.s. testing outdoors in the united states. disapproval came last thursday and we are eager to get flying as we have been abroad. however the permission the faa granted to us is more restrictive than are the rules and approvals by which we conduct outdoor testing in the uk and elsewhere. it's even more limited than the rules applicable to non-commercial amateur uas flies in the united states. obtaining permission took far too long and much longer over half a year than it took in other countries. the good news is while the faa was considering our applications for testing we innovated so rapidly that the uas approved last week has become obsolete. we don't test it anymore. we have moved onto more advanced designs that we already are testing abroad.

last friday we asked the faa for permission to fly one of these advanced uas in the united states as will a we're hopeful that this permission will be granted quickly. although the united states is catching up in permitting current commercial uas testing the united states remains behind in planning for future commercial uas operations. we are grateful for the faa's notably his npr insofar as it goes but it doesn't go far enough. unlike the plan in europe the faa is not adequate addressing compelling uas applications that involve highly operated operations beyond visual line of sight. line of sight to a request comment on whether the rule should prevent operations beyond visual line of sight and if so how enabling technology should be evaluated. this business is just regulars here or abroad to quickly adopt actual rules for uas operations beyond visual line of sight. that may take some time but surely use radar should support -- frameworks and rules for

future commercial operations now. because the united states remains behind in planning for future commercial uas operations, one might assume congress must step in. the fact is with few exceptions the agency has adequate statutory authority. when the faa needs is impetus to last the united states fall further behind. in the impetus given by come embraced by the faa should result in the agency commencing now to plan and develop rules for uas operations to encompass highly automated flights beyond visual line of sight. so in conclusion, madam chair i look for to working with you and your subcommittee and the faa to ensure that important commercial uas services become available in the united states safely and soon but i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. misener. i would like to welcome mr. jeff vander werff. mr. vander werff is representing the american farm bureau federation. thank you, mr. vander werff.

>> thank you subcommittee chair, treachery and members of the subcommittee. my name is jeff vander werff and on the farmer from michigan. i farm with my family just outside sparta where i raise corn, wheat, soybeans and apples with my father, uncle and brother. i am the fourth generation of my family to work out home farm which was purchased by my great-grandfather, a dutch immigrant nearly 80 years ago. today my wife and i are proud to be raising the fifth generation on that same form. within our farm i am responsible for day-to-day activity and operation including precision agriculture and economics but as a farmer uses precision agriculture and understand the boards of the agronomic date i'm here today to discuss the potential benefits and pitfalls of unmanned aircraft systems for my farm in michigan. last summer i attended a precision agriculture demonstration. that included unmanned aircraft flight across fields gathering data. the demonstration for good with an explanation of the images and that data. i walked away knowing that this was the next evolution on my

farm. as an economist and department relies on precision agricultural techniques i rely heavily on data to produce accurate information. accurate information is critical to the day-to-day business decisions i make. these decisions affect my yields environmental impact at all to make the economic viability of my operation. using an unmanned aircraft has the potential to provide me with another a good tool to use in making optimal decisions to maximize the tool of my gums visited one take away after seeing the unmanned aircraft demonstration was its ability to provide detailed scouting scouting information on week in which the insect infestations and potential nutrient shortages. i spent about 12 hours a week walking nearly 3000 acres of land that we farm and while this method is effective, it's not efficient at using an unmanned aircraft would allow me to address threats quicker and more importantly before they develop into significant are potentially catastrophic problems.

reducing financial impact is another significant benefit of using unmanned aircraft. the imagery from unmanned aircraft to spot section of my field as opposed to watering or spraying an entire field to images from the unmanned aircraft will allow me to identify the specific locations or a a specific treatment be it fertilizer, water or pesticides is necessary. this allows me to eliminate the need to use these applications more broadly across the entire field. by spot treating threats are not going over the cost of treatment that i have the potential lowering the privately backed by minimizing the application. while this technology has the potential to be another tool in the toolbox there are some pitfalls we need to discuss. privacy and security of the data collected by unmanned aircraft is concerned to farmers and ranchers. even if an individual operator falls all the applicable rules, regulations and best management practices the risk -- there is

still concerned that agencies are one of the numerous environmental organizations that unnecessary target production agriculture might gain access to individual form data through subpoenas. the biggest fear that farmers face in data collection is that third parties within the united states government could gain access to our data and use it against us. questions abound within the agriculture committee about who owns and controls the data we generate. if a farmer contracts with the company authorized to fly a uas does the farmer owned the data that is generated or is issued with both a a contractor and the farmer? in the case of a farm on rented grounds, to either tenant or does my landlord owned that is the use of unmanned ecosystem will be an important addition to farmers management techniques but it is critical that data remain under the ownership and control of the farmer and is not available to government agencies or others without permission. in conclusion farm bureau is glad to see the federal federal aviation

administration introduced its notice of proposed rulemaking for small uas. farm bureau is in the process of developing our comments to the faa regarding this proposed rule. it is our hope that farmers and ranchers will be able to secure the rights through this process to uas as part of their precision agriculture system. i thank you for the opportune today and look forward to an senior questions. >> thank you, mr. vander werff. i want to thank all of the panelists and i would like to direct my first question to ms. gilligan. ..

and so so with ease and equipment of dollars, so as we identify the requirements we may be making additional requests through the budget process and obviously if we can defend those we would hope the congress can support that as well. >> do you anticipate it will be self-funded? that they will fund this or not

spaghetti doesn't suggest that it funds the entire program. those that you identified or to her to offset the cost of those particular elements in terms of finalizing the rule making and issuing approvals as we do with the operations right now, we do not charge fees for those services to the industry and at this point we would provide them to the industry as well. >> as i understand the rule it prohibits the operation above people. we obviously allow other types of aircraft to go over people including helicopters etc.. so, what was the thinking behind the prohibition and is it a perceived dangerousness with being systems themselves or is

this something that you anticipate looking at and addressing in the next reiteration of the rules? >> in the proposal we were talking about vehicles that are not designed against any standards either vs aa or the faa or the industry's standards for just a friend than what we have for the manned vehicles. because of that we were looking how to mitigate the risk to limited the amount of operation of people not involved in the operation that is an area that also asks for comment on how we can best handle that again because we are talking about introducing the systems that are not designed or manufactured in any kind of system we are accustomed to. >> so with some of the issues that you have raised, given how they propose to be able to use these systems where do you see

this issue going forward and again if you could help address some of the concerns but first i would like to hear on this. >> let's get dean's done -- these done it needs to go further. we need to be looking further down the road for the highly automated operations. i can assure you that it's coming quickly and the fact that we are not even proposing the rules or framework i think we ought to be able to move ahead now and at least think about the rules and stick of just dismissing them. >> and how do you address the concerns raised in terms of the pace with which they are going for these rules in light of the international competitors?

>> we are focusing on the area of authorizing the line of sight. there are several technology challenges to be able to do that including the need to address the issue of what we call the sensitive voyage that is right now we have policy aircraft and they have a regulatory responsibility to see and avoid other traffic that is a technology challenge that needs to be addressed. there is a standard with which those can be designed that will assure a level of safety so we have a number of initiatives under way. we are working on standards for both and the command and control and that involves all of the industry. we have another group under the aviation rulemaking committee that is looking at the online site beyond the visual line of sight as well and that would be the next focus area that we will look at setting standards for.

but it's a far more complex area and one we do not yet have the technology standards established and we would expect to get those from the rt ca in the next year or so very >> we have follow-up questions and we would like to turn over to the ranking member. >> so, with this new interim rule that is out this afternoon, does that put us on par with the europeans or are we still behind >> we are still in a different place and as that is allocated there are a number of places where if they are able to authorize different operations because they have much less complexity in their air space system they have less depth tends to operate at those lower altitudes so we are faced with additional challenges in a number of our aviation partners around the world. what we have authorized today as we are issuing our exemption under this section from the reauthorization.

the operator will be able to immediately operate as long as it is below 200 feet. if they want to go below they must still go to the air traffic organization and identified the airspace they want to operate so we can assure the safe system from whatever general aviation or operations there may be in the airspace that we believe this is increasing the flexibility that we can give now as we grant exemptions. >> i don't know if you have any input on that but are we always going to be behind because they have already implemented the system and we are still on the radar and so they have much more information about who and what is in the airspace. >> when you talk about the system and nexgen they are

working hand-in-hand to harmonize and because kind of systems interoperable. with regards to the ua as i think because of the differences between the u.s. and some countries in terms of the legal framework in terms of the japan where they've been flying for agricultural things for a while one of the difference is the farmer owns the airspace below the land so therefore it is sort of a different perspective. i think moving forward the u.s. working with the international aviation community and the ua industry, we will in fact maintain our position as aeronautical leaders in the world. one of the things i said in my statement is that if we were to implement the notice of proposed

rulemaking we would be on par with foreign countries however they would still keep moving forward so it's going to be that kind of back and forth. there are some reasons for it and they can be congratulated from moving to the plaintiff that it is. as we said there are still some very critical things that needs to happen to keep us in the game >> i think it's true that we are on par when the rules get adopted in 18 or 24 months from now for operations. where we are behind his planning for the future. it's that high degree of automation beyond the line of sight flying that is coming. the europeans are getting ready for it and we are not so much. >> i wonder, you know, a couple

of things that we have done in the congress and partnership with the faa is to create these centers of excellence on the things we don't yet quite understand whether it is composite lightweight manufacturing materials and approval on products so to keep them up to data they have creativity for the data that in the center of excellence now in existence in the lead on biofuel. do we need one of the centers of excellence to help on the technical side to get the answers in advance so as they continue to address into the research is being done. >> getting the appropriation for the purpose of establishing the center of excellence that process is underway and

applications have been received and they are under review. we expect to name the center before the end of the fiscal year and the administrator challenge us to do that even sooner as we possibly can and i think it is in part because we see not only at the test site in the center of excellence we can frame these technology issues into some of the other challenges and get the best minds working on helping to solve those. >> the last phrase is the key. >> thank you madam chair. >> i would like to call on the senator. >> thank you chairwoman. the guidelines for the recreational zones i would like to go through them and ask for your comment. my understanding is that a drought must lately than 50 pounds, slightly low 400 feet, visual line of sight in the muslim of the flying carelessly or wesley, not interfere with manned aircraft operations and importantly there

appears to be no speed limit for the recreational drones and no prohibition on flying over people and so my question for you is although it's been proposed in the pool making that is progress what are we doing at the 400-foot and ground-level and who has to restriction >> those that want to be in the commercial operation we don't authorize right now at all. the recreational users are in accordance with the reauthorization bill and we are working with the american modelers association for them to serving that function and so they have a set of operating expectations for their members and those will be the blank at wealthy have the force of law? >> they do not that it was specifically set forward should but it should be a community standard as opposed to

regulation. >> is preemption a play in other words if a mere wants to set aside they can in consultation with their city council can stay here and there and this is a passive part and they have jurisdiction over the land and this goes to the professor's testimony and my question is did we preempt the local decision-makers from making choices with respect to where the recreational drones are allowed and where they are not? >> they have preemptive authority for the airspace to the federal government for quite a long time. they are the sole entity responsible for the airspace and we do consider that to be from the ground through as high as

the aircraft operate. >> so there would be no prohibition on the 54-pound drone 10 feet above a field as fast as you want to because our statute in the reauthorization preempts a local decision-makers from deciding what is allowable and what is not is that correct? >> i would have to ask our lawyers but more importantly there are a tremendous number of people using these vehicles for recreational purposes who are not informed and that's why we and the manufacturers are doing the outreach we are doing. several are providing information in the packaging so that people understand they have a responsibility if they are going to operate in the

airspace. >> did you want to comment on that? was taken by your signing of the case and i will just quote that the court it is obvious to have the full enjoyment of the land he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the atmosphere and it seems to me that the question of what sort of elevation ceases to have full control over the gland is an open question and it seems to me that it's still being adjudicated is that correct? >> we are being forced to actually figure out what we could afford not to figure out a mass orgy tell before. no one would argue that as a land the landowner i have the right to stop united airlines from flying over my property at 40,000 feet and it is very clear that it is a public resource. the challenge is -- clearly it

doesn't include the airspace 2 inches above my yard. >> should be in the rulemaking process? if you control up to 100 feet then you invite them in ways that might be very problematic. in that sense it is better to have things be general in terms of the reasonable expectation of privacy. >> one final question for ms. gilligan. should we be trading model aircraft and drones synonymously because it seems to me the kind of public infrastructure didn't really envision them as they are emerging maybe i'm wrong but when i hear model aircraft i

don't picture a 54-pound object moving at 100 miles an hour but maybe i am still catching up myself. >> what we are seeing as you've highlighted is that many people who are buying the unmanned systems are not what we would historically consider modelers. they were generally aviators that came to us because of the love of the fee asian and they wanted to build other flights into those kind of things. with different parts of the communities joining us now we are working hard to make them understand they have aviation responsibilities that go beyond being able to buy this interesting toy they want to use in their backyard. >> thank you very much. ms. gilligan, the proposed rules there's no requirement for a u.s. operator flight training or

certification of the equipment. those standards exist to ensure they are safe and operators can utilize them. how will those issues be addressed in the future? >> we looked at the language in the reauthorization bill that authorizes the secretary to make a finding there is no need for the worthiness certificate and other criteria met and those were related to the speedway and location of operation. what the rule does is describe the criteria and provided the limitation that is consistent with the statute in such a way that we we don't admit the expectation that there wouldn't be the need for the certification to a particular set of standards. i'm sorry. i forget the other one asked about. >> the worthiness of the operator. >> so there is an operator testing requirement. it is different from the private

pilot requirements because they will not have to actually manipulate the aircraft. but in order to pass the test, it will be necessary in order to receive the education in the standards of operating in the airspace. so we believe that the testing requirement will assure people are competent for the purpose of operating their system. now we've asked for the comment and we will be interested to see if we need to address those proposals. >> developing the system over the long distances using the cellular telephone networks or at least existing cell phone towers that conversation -- are we recognizing the considerable technological hurdles that are out there and are the in the token indication companies prepared for this task? >> senator, we really are i think at the very beginning of the development of the kind of commercial aviation and i

honestly am not thoroughly familiar with the use of the cell phone towers in connection. and that is something that we need to get back to you on. >> let me switch to farm bureau. you said this in your testimony and i wasn't here to hear it. there is a great potential here and i wanted to ask you a specific question because how necessary are the beyond site side of flight operations for cultural purposes? >> one of my other panelists spoke about the use for the japanese and the use that is going on in the aviation countries. they are using these in ways far beyond what we are now in terms of the art only using them for

scouting that applications of nutrients of things of that nature and many of those are about the line beyond the line of sight control. the line of sight control i will say have been made that but the safety features are extremely redundant. once the vehicle has the distance of the software it automatically turns and returns. if you lose control it comes back to where it started from so it's not like they leave the line of sight and go buzzing around the countryside. a return to where they started from and that is based on the information that was put in when they were launched.

>> i am aware of the beneficial uses including spotting wildfires, examining monitoring traffic, but while there are benefits to the drone use there are di is the eyes in the sky shouldn't become spies in the sky and today just as we have rules and the road we needed them as well. and i believe that we can achieve both the privacy and give flight to this new technology that will bring jobs and economic growth to our country. for the american people we are flying blind. it sounds like science fiction but there's a reality right now and that technology is getting cheaper and more accessible. this drone has two cameras that

can be easily purchased and online for only $100 sliding over everybody's house in the united states. the faa has already given exemptions to nearly 50 commercial operators have announced today that it is planning to expedite the process so they can fly in the national airspace with no clear privacy rules. they can then use and sell that information however they choose. this is why earlier this month i've introduced the aircraft privacy and transparency act. the bill requires one commercial drone operator to disclose which data they have collected and how the data is used and whether it will be sold and when it will be deleted if at all.

i look forward to working with my colleagues on these issues. if they do not have any further all privacy protections into the final round licensing process flying over my house i be able to find out how the company uses what about the airspace in which they are operating.

>> would i be able to find out the data that they are collecting and would i be able to do that if i see it flying over my house can i call and can you then say provide data over what you filmed in the backyard of the out. >> they do not currently collect that information. >> would i be able to find out who owns or upgrade the one that is flying over my house. >> as i said we do keep the records about what they are space operators are working on and that is publicly available today. >> so if it is on the public website right now i could find out if you have a drone over my backyard. >> it is publicly available and we release it in the requests, so it is available. i apologize right off hand i don't know if it is one that you can access on your ipad here today. >> so, if somebody sees the south side of the window with

their family members in the backyard that right now an individual in america could call the faa and find out who owned the drone is that what you are saying? >> we have the information about who has been authorized and in what airspace and whether or not that is an authorized operation. >> the purpose they are calling is not something that we keep track of. >> that goes to the privacy issue. >> if those children are now being filmed by a drone what can we do to protect the family if all of these various individuals may be trying to take advantage of the all-time privacy rules.

>> they are taking the lead that is described earlier. >> well, again what i am saying is in the absence of the federal law that we put on the books the drones with cameras, 100 bucks flying over backyards and people all over the country. and we have to put strong and enforceable walls on the books that ensure that americans know no information is being gathered about their children. it's being collected at the potential is being sold as there are no rules against any of that, then the absence of us putting the production on the books in the committee that were allowing all of these technologies to take off without the values that the americans would want to have being built into this new technology that is

our job on the committee. this is an inanimate object that has no value is good or bad. we are the ones that have to animate it with the values if we believe it should have as a potentially engages in the predatory activities against the families. thank you madam chair. >> thank you madam chair. >> it's wonderful to see you here as a fellow hearing the testimony today and in addition a proud alumni of michigan state university so it's great to have you here as one of the agricultural universities in the country come and i think it's important for you to be here as well and if you look at the applications of these romans in the opportunities for the economic benefit it's an agricultural sector where we can see some of the most significant increases of productivity. that's why you want to talk to you a little bit about this as you mentioned in the testimony

and flush it out a little bit. i know farming has changed dramatically over the years and have the opportunity for a guy that didn't grow up on a farm on the tractors that look like computers now they don't look like tractors with gps systems in all sorts of geographical information on them as you are dealing with the field area that you talked about the way that these can help in the productivity. you quantify that or are there things develop a sophisticated equipment you have now and what is going to mean from the bottom line. >> thank you. >> these unmanned aerial vehicles on the farms and ranches are are multiform and they are not specific to any one system. anyone from cattle ranchers in the western united states who are looking to find herds of cattle over large distances very quickly to specialty crop growers like myself and i don't know if any of you have been to a commercial apple orchard but

if you've taken rows of trees it's been like in a gigantic labyrinth. you you cannot only you lose your self that equipment very quickly. on the unmanned aerial vehicles to get that bird's eye view to identify issues. on the green side of the operation where we are most excited about the potential benefits of these vehicles. for example to be able to fly over a cornfield and put through the lens of the uav for the infrared light signatures coming off of the crop we can identify plants and weeds because for example, a patch of grass will give off a different signature than soybeans. so rather than have to walk the entire field or apply a herbicide to the field i can simply identify a specific area and then make that economic determination whether or not it is going to be beneficial. we look at some of the issues

going on in the western united states with water shortages in the aquifer and i have a number reference in nebraska and kansas who are excited about the idea if they don't longer have to just blanket applied the water to the initial quarter section within irrigation they can fly the uav over it and map the heat signature coming off and apply water simply where it is needed, when it is needed and how it is needed. this technology is exciting and it's going to revolutionize order of the agricultural industry than we are are incorrectly and it's going to continue to make up as the most competitive country on the planet. >> based on the large areas that you have to cover, the regulations that limit the line of site operations that's not going to work for you is is it lacks >> line of sight operation is a challenge right now. it's a matter of if you are in the western united states western united states with their ground is relatively flat, those folks you are basically limited to how shire your eye is on the line of sight it could be a few

hundred feet before you have trees and other obstructions. that's where the capabilities of these technologies were even bigger to earlier and they are so relevant to us to be able to simply take your ipad can, swipe your finger to map out the pattern and the aircraft will take off and fly the pattern and do the mapping and then it will come back and i can upload that data into my computer and have it right there. the idea that these can take off on a fly half half aisle or il-2 and other farming to do that now not advocate the return is exciting. the technology is there and it's simply if we are going to allow it to exist i believe we can do it safely and effectively. but that's again the technology is ever faster. >> the faa has granted i think in the testimony you mentioned

some 60 exemptions under 333 which was granted for some of these precision agricultural operations as well as the aerial photography. i understand there are 600 hundred petition pending. but do they have any plans to the petition process similar to the 48 or the 60 that have already been granted particularly as we hear about the important applications for the agriculture? >> yes sir we are learning lessons as we go through this process. today, we have actually issued ten additional approvals in the process that we are calling a summary grant which means we can look at an individual petition and if it is similar enough to one that we have already fully analyzed and put out for public comment we don't need to repeat the process again. and that we leave will substantially increase the ability to handle these more quickly because we are seeing certain markets in which many of them fall. there are still some very unique ones that have to go for public

comment and more complete and ours is but to the extent we can, we are trying to link the new applications with the decisions that we have already made to streamline it. in addition, today, we issued what we are calling a broad certificate of authorization for air space 200 feet and below. so if the applicant can operate and make their mission from below the 200 feet, they will not have to get additional approval from the air traffic organization so that will also shorten the process. we have the dedicated team so they are giving and getting more efficient data that would be the case. we are dedicated. the administrator has challenged us to move these petitions as quickly as we possibly can. >> that should help. >> the white house was not a commercial vehicle?

the problem with people flying close. have any of these sensational exciting drones that are showing up in the newspaper happened because of amazon? when he did establish between the commercial operations into the private use. we have a problem with private use i was happy to see my colleagues bring up the private use, but the commercial usage to fly over the large crowds of people. that is not an issue. i am a little bit upset because it seems like when it comes to the government moving at the speed of innovation whether it is biologics the backlog of the patent offices or in this were in this area we are slowing this country where innovation is going on overseas at an extraordinary pace and we are being left behind.

forgive me your name disturbed and are worth -- vander wal. you talked about the revolutionary impact allowing the drones to be used. right now as we speak our agricultural competitors are investing in using this technology is that correct? this is what is hard for me to believe the slowness with which this country is moving if the actual aviation industry was regulated back in the time of the wright brothers, we might have gotten first in flight. that other people will be applying the commercial planes before we even got the aviation that started here. so it is frustrating to me that i would love to know last week they allowed amazon to begin testing outdoors in the united states but it was in a limited fashion that still puts us in

america in the backseat of what you are allowed to do another countries and no mishaps or sensational articles, nothing like that is happening with the the experiments with you all are doing to advance this technology summit: is that correct >> yes sir although i will say they have turned a corner. we are at a spot now to discuss this before where they expect to be planning for the future. >> let the record officially show that you have sucked up to the faa. [laughter] >> they will look at your application kindly. can you describe the work they are doing in other countries in relation to what we are doing here? >> what we are doing in other countries is we are allowed to innovate quickly in ways we haven't been allowed to hear. the jury is out on whether the

system is setup on the set up on the grant from last weekend if it will work. i feel like it is motivated to get as innovative here in the country again. we just haven't been able to do it yet and we are hoping to do it very soon. >> they are dedicated professionals. i have no interest in saying nice things about the faa incredibly committed folks. my comments are in no way talking about them. in fact, i would say that you have some constraints on how well you are able to move because both the faa and the industry agree that the process is too slow and allows near a application for those that are lucky enough to be granted the exemption. so i'm asking you what steps can the congress take in congress take in the reauthorization to strengthen your ability, ds aa ability to issue exemption more broadly and in less time.

>> thank you senator. our administrator is interested in looking at how we might be able to take advantage of whatever other goodies we have if we need to broaden those. in fact there is technical assistance already underway between the staff and the staff on the committee to look at these particular issues to see what more can be done. >> can be as aa issue exemption for the industry to operate beyond the line of sight? >> we would have the authority to issue those exemptions if we could make the case and i think that's the dilemma or the challenge that we face would with beyond the line of sight. if we don't have the standards to be able to evaluate whether in fact we have saved enough technology to permit that to occur. >> if we have the hearing because there are a lot of

issues about anybody and their friends being able to go out and get a drone that the commercial folks acting in the wall are being held back to the global competitors. >> thank you senator. i think that you have raised some very good points in terms of some of the uses of the drones making sure that we are clear on where it is happening. i would like to call on senator. >> thinks that on the chair. certainly appreciate the comments that you have heard in this hearing and probably raise more questions than answers read i come from a state in montana that places great values in privacy. we might have different individual privacy expectations perhaps then the people in large urban areas and that is why people like to live in states like montana. also we've talked with members of the state legislature that are addressing these privacy concerns at the state level.

so it relates to what is going on at the faa and i commend them for taking action on the certification on the aspects of the commercial unmanned systems in the notice of proposed rulemaking on the small commercial systems but i do have concerns about the privacy aspects associated with the remotely piloted aircraft. many of which are not being used commercially like the senator between the commercial use and for noncommercial use and are therefore not subject to the proposed rulemaking. so my question is does the faa think that there is an appropriate rule for local regulation of noncommercial uses and if so what might there be? >> i'm not sure if they have a position on the local control. i do know that in the last

reauthorization the congress gave us very clear direction to about the model kind of operations without additional or delivery restraint. we have complied with that and we are working with the community to allow the use of what they called to me to be standards and the american modelers association taking the lead providing to their members information about how they can properly operate safely and remain recreational users of this kind of technology. >> what is your opinion as a professional, someone who is in it everyday every day and knows a lot more about it than i do? do you think that there would be a role in that you think that it's a good idea of allowing the states -- >> we will take you live to the floor of the united states senate. i coverage here on c-span2. mr. sanders: thank you. mr. president, the amendment that we are going to be

discussing now -- and i want to say a few words about it in a moment -- i think is the one of the, deals with one of the most important issues facing our country. and that is the lack of affordability of college and the reality that when millions of our young people graduate school, they are left in crushing debt year after year after year, and they are unable to refinance that debt which has a huge impact on their lives. and i want to give time now to senator elizabeth warren who played a great role in focusing on this issue and has what i think is an excellent amendment. i yield to the senator from massachusetts. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: mr. president i rise today to urge my colleagues to support amendment 652 to refinance existing student loans and bring down the high interest rates that are dragging down millions of americans.

when rates are low people refinance their mortgages. when rates are low businesses refinance their debts. well rates are low and we want to give the 40 million americans who are dealing with student loans the same chance to refinance their loans. last year republicans blocked our efforts to lower student loan interest rates. they said there were other better ways to deal with student loan debt, but they did nothing. so tens of millions of borrowers got nothing. and millions of borrowers are still stuck paying interest rates at 6%, 8%, 10% and even higher. while republicans were busy blocking student loan refinancing, our country's student debt problem got worse much worse. in the last year outstanding student debt has increased by $100 billion. nearly a million more borrowers have fallen behind on their

student loans and the interest rate on new student loans only got higher. this amendment offers us a chance to actually do something for the millions of americans dealing with student loan debt. the idea is simple. refinance outstanding student loans down to 3.9% for undergraduates a little higher for graduate students. the amendment would save borrow ers hundreds and in some cases thousands of dollars a year all without adding a dime to our deficit. it is fully paid for by closing up a tax loophole that allows millionaires and billionaires to pay a lower tax rate than middle-class families. we have a choice. protect a tax loophole for billionaires or give tens of millions of people a chance to refinance their student loans. a choice. protect a tax loophole for billionaires or give millions of middle-class people a chance to build some real economic security.

congress has worked far too long for the dollars. now it's time for congress to work for hardworking people. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: let's be frank. we live in a global economy. we need the best-educated work force in the world to compete and yet we are making it harder and harder for middle-class families to send their kids to college and at the same time we're saying to those young people who go to college you are going to be living with an oppressive debt for decades for decades. i several months ago talked to a young woman in burlington, vermont. mr. president, her crime was that she went to medical school in order to become a primary care physician exactly the people we need. she left medical school with $300,000 in debt. does anybody think this makes any sense at all?

right now if you want top pew a new car you can get interest rates of zero, 1%, 2%, you want to renot in your home you can pay 3% 4,% 5% yet when parents want to send their kids to college or can young people themselves take out lopes they -- loans they are forced to pay 6%, 8%, or even higher for the crime of wanting to get a higher education. senator warren's amendment is eminently sensible. it significantly lowers interest rates, cutting them almost in half to 3.9%. this would be a huge blessing for millions of young people who are having a hard time buying homes, hard time even starting families because they are dealing with an oppressive debt. the laps point i would make and

i hope everybody remembers this -- when wall street because of their greed recklessness and illegal behavior needed to be bailed out the fed provided them with zero interest, .5% interest rates by the trillions of dollars. if we could bail out wall street if the fed could bail out wall street with extremely low interest rates, it is time for us to treat the young people in this country and their parents with the same respect. we need to substantially lower interest rates on student debt and the warren amendment would do that. i would yield three minutes to the senator from new hampshire. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire is recognized. mrs. shaheen: thank you very much mr. president. i appreciate and support the comments from my colleague my

neighbor from vermont senator sanders, and am pleased to be here to support senator warren's bill which i am cosponsoring. this amendment would allow our young people to refinance their student loans. student loan debt is the second -- has now surpassed credit card debt in this country. this is an issue about the economy of this country but even more important it's an issue about the future of our young people. in new hampshire, student loan debt we have the second highest student loan debt in the country. i have talked to young people and their families who say they are delaying getting married they're delaying having children delaying buying houses because of their student loan debt. and yet families can refinance their houses, refinance their cars, they should be able to refinance their student loans. this is critical to getting our economy moving again in the way it should, it's critical to

ensuring that our young people have a future. so i hope all of our colleagues will take a look at this legislation and will agree that it makes sense. we need to do this for our families, for our students, for our country. thank you very much. i yield back to the senator frommer vermont. -- the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: the senator from rhode island -- three minutes? mr. whitehouse: i'll be even briefer than that. i ask unanimous consent i be added as a cosponsor to senator warren's amendment. rhode island is the very proud location of some of the best universities in the country. we have very high university density in our small state. we have everything from brown university in providence to our wonderful state universities led by the university of rhode island to leading catholic colleges like providence college in newport, rhode island, and to support kids in getting their

college education and to bring down the cost is a priority for us in rhode island so i'm proud to cosponsor this amendment and i yield back any further time. mr. sanders: the senator from new jersey. mr. booker: thank you for recognizing me. i, too want to rise in support of this amendment. in a nation that is finding itself increasingly with global competitors, where other nations, some of the most active economic competitors we have are doing everything they can to keep the cost of college low in germany 4% to 5% of median income, that's the cost of college. in cap 5% to 6% of median income that's the cost of college. in england 6% to 7% before median income. that is the cost of college. other competitive democracies know you widen the avenues some greater college education but here in the united states over 50% of median income to go to

college. we are raising barriers for our children to get into the game to be on the field and play and i say when you field a team, when stanford would compete in football we didn't leave four or five of our players on the sidelines. we got everybody on the field. and that's what we need. this bill is -- this amendment is common sense. we should not be profiting as a government off of the backs of our students. we should allow them to refinance their student debt and that is why i support and i'm grateful for my colleagues' support as well. mr. sanders: mr. president, how many you how much time on the democratic side remaining? the presiding officer: the democrat side has five minutes remaining. mr. sanders: mr. president over the last several months actually i've had three town

meetings in vermont with young people on this issue. and it is an issue of huge concern to them and their parents and as senator booker just mentioned we are competing with countries all over the world who say to their young people if you have the ability and if you have the desire, you can go to college regardless of your income. in germany, tuition for college is now zero. many scandinavian countries it is now zero. what they are saying to the young people, we need you to get the best education to help us create the strongest economy, to create the jobs we need. how insane is it for us to literally discourage bright young people from attending college, or to tell others that if they graduate college or graduate school, they're going to be $70,000 $8,000, $100 in

debt. -- $100,000 in debt. what sense does this make for the well-being of the middle class of this country or for our economic competitiveness? now, in the next month i'll be personally introducing legislation that will cut, do away with tuition in public colleges and universities. but today what we can focusing on is legislation that is so sensible, so obvious it is hard for me to imagine that anybody could vote against it. i have in my office at least two attorneys -- two attorneys who are struggling with huge student debts and this is true all over this country. they graduated college 15 years ago, they're still paying off that debt. it impacts what they can do. we have evidence out there that

families are not having children because of student debt. not buying homes because of student debt. why is it that people have to pay double or triple interest rates because they got an education as opposed to what they would pay when they purchase a car or a home? does anybody think that makes sense? so today we have an opportunity to stand up for the young people of this country to say we want you to get an education, we want you to have the freedom to live your lives after you leave school. that's what this amendment is about. i would yield time to the senator from virginia, senator kaine. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: mr. president i also rise to speak on behalf of this budget amendment and i'll just be brief. there's a wonderful organization that analyzes education in this country called the lumina foundation and their main area of research is the percentage of

adults in the country and competitor countries that have higher education degrees. because of the g.i. bill, the united states rocketed ahead of other nations and became the clear leading country in the world in the percentage of adults with higher eddegrees and there wasn't a close secretary. now we're 15th to 20th in the world and slipping. i would argue there is no economic future we like with the united states that is slipping further and further behind other nations in the percentage of folks with higher degrees and that's why i support this amendment. i yield back my time. mr. sanders: i would yield one minute to the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: mr. president, thank you very much. i'm very pleased to stand here on the floor of the senate with senator warren and senator sanders and all of my colleagues on the democratic side who feel very strongly that if young people are going to have a fair shot to get ahead to enter the middle class, to be a part of a thriving economy they've got to come out of college without mountains and mountains of debt

so they can go on and buy a house and a car and have a family and a career and not be saddled with outrageous, outrageous debt. that's what this amendment is about. if there ever was an amendment that says we want middle-class opportunity for everybody it's this one. i hope we'll have a unanimous vote. mr. sanders: let me conclude by saying this -- the high cost of college and student debt is one of the great issues facing our country. we are trying to lower student debt significantly. our republicans colleagues' response to to the crisis is to cut $90 billion in mapped tremendous fun for pell grants. the choice is pretty clear. we're looking at the future of this country the need for our young people to get the best education possible and not to graduate college deeply in debt. that's what this amendment is about and i would hope we're going to have strong bipartisan support for it. and with that, mr. president i

would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: i don't think there is anybody on either side of the aisle that isn't concerned about student debt and the cost of interest and the cost of college and the amount of people graduating with debt. but addressing college costs and the burden of high student debt loans has to be done, but it can't be done on a budget bill. you can't have policy on a budget resolution. i know that this doesn't include all of or policy so it's an incomplete bill, the office of management and budget last month disclosed the participation in the existing income baseed repayment plan has been much higher than was anticipated and the administration is in the process of stepping those repayment options to all the eligible bother hoers of

outstanding student loans. therefore the o.m.b. projects it will cost taxpayers an additional $22 billion. that's $22 billion more spent to alleviate the repayment burden of borrowers with outstanding debt. you can find that number in the president's budget. c.b.o. did score this amendment on which this is based and projected the government will make billions in profit -- listen to this -- from buick up tens of billions worth of private loans and reincome them at lower rates. -- refinancing them at lower rates. they're going to buy up loans and then they're going to refinance at lower rates and the way that that scores is positive for the federal government. wow. that's why we're talking about needing some changes in the way we do scoring around here. think about that. if the government can make money while charging a lower rate,

why stop there? we can make trillions for this country. c.b.o. though, as well as leading economic economists and think tanks think the accounting 1 seriously flawed. they favor fair value accounting under which loans are valued what they are worth to the private sector. the student loan portfolio does not make a big profit. it actually has a significant cost. and one of the reasons for some of the high interest rates was when the affordable care act was passed, it set those rates higher, so that there'd be revenue for the affordable care act. so i hope that you will defeat this amendment and support the bipartisan king-burr proposal. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote in relation to amendment number 622 offered by the senator from

north carolina, mr. burr. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. mr. king: mr. president i rise to urge my colleagues to support the king-burr amendment number 622. right now the student loan repayment system is a mess. there are nine different alternatives. they are very confusing. even the names are confusing. income-based repayment income-contingent repayment income-sensitive repayment and pay-as of you-you-earn. it is very complicated and makes it confusing and hard for students. senator burr and i have introduced in amendment in order to simplify this decision. basically, we've taken suggestions from individuals from students, from institutions as well as the president to simplify the loan repayment

provision to reduce it basically to two options: a fixed repayment over two years orage or -- or an income-repayment over a longer time. i urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. i believe it is an overdue simplifying of this process. and i believe it will contribute to the dealing with this issue in a more constructive way for the students of america. thank you mr. president. mr. enzi: mr. president i need to ask a unanimous consent for eight -- eight unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

senator from vermont. mr. sanders: we think the burr-king amendment is a sensitive, noncontroversial amendment and i don't think we have i have objections to it on this side. -- have any objections to it on this side. i would suggest a voice vote, please. the presiding officer: is there any further debate? without any further debate, the question is on the amendment. all knows those in favor say aye. those opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. do have it. so ordered. there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on amendment number 652 offered by the senator from massachusetts, ms. warren p. mr. sanders: not seeing the senator from massachusetts let

me just make this point: if there is an eminently sensible amendment to come before us, this is it. it addresses the crisis that exists all over this country where young people are graduating college deeply in debt and have that onerous debt around their necks for decades. what this amendment sumly says is give these young people the opportunity to refinance their debts, substantially lower their student debt, cut their student debt in half. it is hard for me to imagine how anybody really could vote against an amendment as sensible as this amendment but so important to millions of families in this country who want to be able to send their kids to college and for the young people who want to graduate college without this oppressive debt. i would strongly ask for a "yes"

vote on this amendment. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont -- the senator from i would i would. the. mr. enzi: mr. president the proper way to do this is to do the full bill and then run it through the committee and then the floor and not to try and do some policy on a budget resolution. so i would ask for a "no" vote. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. enzi: our side yields back any time. the presiding officer: all time is yielded back. the question occurs on the amendment. the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or or wishing to change their vote? if not the ayes are 46, the noes are 53. the amendment is not agreed to. the senator from montana. mr. tester: thank you mr. president. mr. president, the federal budget is a pressing concern for anybody in this body including myself. especially given the political

climate we have in congress, we've been two houses divided for some time now. back in 2011 republican house and the democratic senate agreed that federal spending was out of control. they just couldn't agree on what to do about it. so members from both chambers came together to give congress two option. either pass a responsible budget that helped reduce the deficit or face drastic cuts to every discretionary federal department. that threat of sequester was supposed to represent the end of the road. forcing congress to put its differences aside and to work together. but sometimes even a dead end is not enough to motivate some folks to do the right thing. congress failed to come up with a bipartisan long-term spending plan and sequestration went into effect two years ago. that sequestration has had devastating effects. both nationally and in my home state of montana.

take, for instance, sequestration's impact on our national forests. we have some 17 million acres of national forests in montana managed by the u.s. forest service. under its current structure the forest service uses the same pool of funds to manage our national festivities as it does to fight wildfires. in bad years it can consume up to 40% of the forest service budget. it's no surprise their budget is still in disarray two years after sequestration cuts of over $200 million during the hot dry summer that saw millions of acres of trees burn across the west. sequestration proved to be irresponsible and its impacts long lasting. and our forests weren't the only casualty. indian country was slammed from education to health care to infrastructure. indian health service shaw its budget cut by a similar amount. health care in indian country is chronically underfunded anyway.

the additional 5% cut to i.h.s. budget resulted in over 800,000 fewer outpatient visits for native americans. indian schools many of which are in such bad shape nobody in this body would send their kids there, while those indian schools saw their budgets cut by $67 million which resulted in bigger class size, cutbacks to academic programs, cutbacks to building maintenance and reduction in technology upgrades. sequestration was almost as devastating to the public education system in this country, and it had its impact on seniors and low-income children and families p. and it will be again if congress doesn't act. between now and september 30, congress must pass a responsible budget to reduces our deficit but the last -- and we have time to agree on that.

or we will face greater cuts than we saw last time. the president's budget proposal makes significant investments in infrastructure and education and our outdoors. these initiatives will help grow our economy particularly in rural states like montana. but there's one big problem -- the president's budget fails to reduce the deficit in a smart and meaningful way. but the other options on the table are worse. the house last week unveiled its budget proposal. it is the height of irresponsibility. the house wants to privatize medicare by turning it into a voucher program, wants to turn medicaid into block grants and then cut those, they want to cut taxes for millions and bills -- millionaires and big corporations while they phase out the earned income tax credit squeezing the wallets of millions of working americans. the house also cuts the pell grant program. it repeals the affordable care act. that's no surprise.

the house has voted over 50 times to repeal the a.c.a. ignoring the fact that we have some 16 million more americans that have affordable access to health care than before the law was passed. but in a show of boundless hypocrisy, the house balances its budget by -- but only by counting the $700 billion in medicare savings and the $1 trillion in new revenue that the affordable care act provides. now, some folks might say that's the house of representatives. look how they handled the funding for the department of homeland security for this year they nearly shut down the agency tasked with protecting our borders and preventing terrorist attack on americans. the house gave up on responsible governing years ago. but, mr. president the fact of the matter is, the budget before us today in the senate isn't much different. it repeals the affordable care

act, but again pretends to keep the $700 billion in savings to medicare and the $1 trillion of revenue created by the affordable care act. after it's been repealed. i'm not a farmer, i'm -- i'm a farmer i'm not an accountant, i'm a farmer, not an accountant i want to make that clear but this is the kind of new math that doesn't add up to me. the senate budget similar to the house also guts pell grant -- the pell grant program by one-third. why is that important? i'll tell you in montana students are graduating college with more than $27,000 in debt in student loans. the last thing they need is less pell grants and more student debt which is exactly what will happen if the senate budget passes. it also puts states on the hook for over $1 trillion in medicaid funding. what's that mean? it means we're not going to take care of it anymore we're going to push it off on the states and

act like it doesn't exist. and just like the house it raises taxes on the lowest rung of our economic ladder by repealing the extension of the earned income tax credit and child tax credit. these credits keep millions of working families with relatively low incomes out of poverty, in fact 13 million americans. now, while this rhetoric about passing a balanced budget sounds good and i will tell you i do support a balanced budget, the reality, this budget does not cut it. it does not balance. why? because this budget relies on gimmicks like using the overseas contingency fund which is supposed to fund the war in afghanistan and actions against isis but instead has become a slush fund for the department of defense. this assumes hundreds of billions of dollars in -- quote -- "unallocated cuts." that's great messaging. we're going to slash the budget

by hundreds of billions of dollars but we're not going to tell you where we're going to cut. we can talk about cuts but when it gets to the specifics the real tough decisions we're not going to talk about those not even going to tell you where they're at. that's not only secretive it's dishonest and bad policy and these kind of smoke and mirrors are the worst washington has to offer. while the president's budget spends far too much at least it's honest and open and transparent. the house and senate budgets are just a display of bad mathematics. they lack any sort of realistic plan to keep our economy growing by investing in america. instead of balancing these budgets on the back of middle-class families and seniors, and students, and our nation's most vulnerable, we need to fully invest in the things that helps this economy grow like roads and bridges and our outdoor economy education for our kids, and our grandkids. because that's the only way they're going to be able to

compete in this global economy. you know in 2015 every nation is interconnected. business transactions not actions occur between corporations scientific discoveries he course are shared from universities on different continue intent, carbon emissions standards are achieved by international agreements. but global security seems to be a battle that we, the united states is fighting alone. and at what cost? last week my appropriation subcommittee on military construction held a hearing on defense department's construction budget. now, the united states spends more on defense than the next nine nations combined. let me say it one more time. the united states spends more on defense than the next nine nations combined. including united kingdom germany, india and yes china. two of america's greatest international threats isis and a nuclear iran, pose a grave

threat to us but also to our allies in the middle east and europe. yet we're the ones paying the overwhelming majority of these costs. this budget hides those costs from the american people. and with 47 senators pushing us to go to war with iran, i think the american people deserve to know how we're spending their dollars overseas. do not misunderstand me. congress' foremost concern should be with protecting our nation and keeping our communities safe but that should also be the foremost concern of our allies around the world. time and time again though, it's the u.s. taxpayer and american lives that are on the line and that price is far too high. it's not just dollars and cents, it's the lives of our kids it's the wounds they will face when they return from war if they return from war at all. and these are price tags we cannot afford. while we send our troops and our

treasures overseas our allies are free to invest significantly in more public education health care, infrastructure, research and development and lower taxes. why? because we're paying the bill. their economies grow in relation to our deficit. has congress looks to responsively look to cut spending we must look at the billions we waste overseas and need to level with the american people about the true cost of war. and while caring for our veterans is a cost we absolutely should bear, we can no longer afford to fight and fund every international conflict. and we have to stop paying for war on our children's credit card. we need to think about the future and invest in public education and health care and infrastructure in sound forest management and in lower taxes. a global economy and a global defense will allow us to invest in middle-class families, educating our children, protecting our seniors and making sure that americans can afford food and shelter.

these are investments that we must make. but the budget before us stops investing in america. we can do better and we must do better. mr. president, i yield the floor. ms. stabenow: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: first i ask unanimous consent to set sea side the pending amendment and call up bennet-stabenow amendment number 601. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from michigans in stabenow for mr. bennet proposes amendment numbered 601. ms. stabenow: thank you very much. mr. president, medicare turns 50 years old this year, and this is not the time to turn our back on medicare. and the universal nature of

medicare. we all understand and have confidence after paying into the system year after year that turning age 65 or meeting the other qualifications of the act mean that health care will be available to everyone, regardless of where you live, regardless of who you are. medicare is a great american success story. before medicare became law only half of americans who are 65 years of age or ordinarily had any type -- or older had any type of health insurance. they couldn't find health insurance. and those who found health insurance were paying through the roof to be able to get that insurance. and oftentimes they were paying but lacked coverage for surgery or health expenses that were -- that occurred outside the hospital. and you could have one single surgery or illness appeared be totally wiped out -- and be totally wiped out. and so our country came together

and said, we are going to make sure that for seniors in this country that health care will be available to everyone. and we have done that. and it is extremely successful. i am very, very concerned about what this budget does to medicare, as well as the budget in the house of representatives. first of all let me say that, no question, medicare, as with every other public program was designed to improve and evolve and be strengthened and add new things certainly for security of future generations. that's why the prescription drug bill was passed. that's why in the affordable care act we took even a better step forward to make sure there was no gap in coverage under prescription drugs. the and seniors today are spending thousands -- and seniors today are spending thousands of dollars less out of

pocket to get critically needed medicine than they did before the affordable care act. and they now have no out-of-pocket costs for annual wellness visits or for other prevention. now, in this bill, that is undermined in two different ways. first of all the affordable care act which 16.4 million people are now using to get health care for themselves and their families and most of them, by the way are people who couldn't afford health care in the past, just like seniors couldn't 50 years ago all of them will lose their health care under this budget, the house and the senate budget. and the chaiption that we made to -- and the changes that we made to improve prescription drug coverage, lower the cost for seniors, that will be gone. that was part of the a.c.a. the changes to protect people, to be able to know that when they have insurance that they're going to be covered when they get sick and not dropped if

they are sick, if they have a serious disease, they can still get insurance even if they have a preexisting condition -- all of the things in the affordable care act are gone under this budget. now, interestingly -- and as the distinguished senator from montana said -- all the revenue raised under the affordable care act stays in this bill, so they keep the money but take away your medical care. and then to add insult to injury because actually repealing the affordable care act increases the deficit the affordable care act is exempted from the point of order that is required in the budget when an action actually increases the deficit. so then you add to that what is being done in medicare. the house cuts $150 billion from medicare for senior citizens.

by moving away from what has been the foundation of medicare, which is a guaranteed benefit. you pay in. it is a guaranteed benefit. and turning it into something they call "premium support." the senate proposes even more than that, $434 billion in cuts to medicare over the next ten years -- not specified but using the same kinds of language that relate to security of the program and issues that in the past have been called "vouchers" or some other change that all ends up in the same place, which is cutting medicare. our children, our grandchildren know that grandpas and grandmas and aunts and uncles and moms and dads right now have health

care because of this wonderful american success story called medicare. it is seriously undermined in this budget. i would urge my colleagues to come together and send a clear message that we stand together in a bipartisan way to continue to support medicare; to say hands off the medicare program and the promise made to our seniors now and to those in the future. the bennet-stabenow amendment would create a point of order against legislation -- in other words, require a supermajority vote -- on anything that would privatize medicare, would cut guaranteed benefits, increase out-of-pocket spending or use premium support schemes to undermine the fundamental nature of what medicare is.

now, i also find it quite extraordinary, mr. president that in the house, which is more specific, when the affordable care act health exchanges are eliminated two pages later in their budget they create health exchanges for medicare. some would say obamacare medicare. this is a very strange debate we are having on health care. so we want to make it very clear. hands off medicare. hands off medicare, whether you're trying to privatize it in some way turn it over to private insurance companies vouchers cut garnetted guaranteed benefits use what has been called premium support schemes to undermine medicare's universal nature of what it is -- stop it. hands off medicare.

that's what we need to be doing in this budget, and i hope colleagues will come together and vote for the bennet-stabenow amendment to guarantee that that happens. mr. president, i have a second amendment that is a side-by-side amendment for the barrasso amendment that will be called up later, and i have been asked also to move forward on that amendment as well. so i would ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up the stabenow amendment 755. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from michigan ms. stabenow, proposes an amendment numbered 755. ms. stabenow: thank you mr. president. obviously, i care very passionately about medicare and about health care and believe strongly that this is a

fundamental right of every american. we don't decide when we're going to get sick. we don't decide when our children are going to get sick or what's going to happen to us as it relates to our health. but another important part of health relates to the ability to have clean drinkable water and the clean water act has been a vital tool for promoting health and livelihood in the economies of americans for the past 40 years. in fact, according to the e.p.a. the clean water act has kept tens of billions of pounds of sewage and chemicals and trash out of our waterways and has helped double the number of american waters that meet standards for fishing and swimming. and i can tell you in michigan, with the great lakes we love the great lakes mr. president. it is in our d.n.a. and the ability to fish, the ability to swim -- in fact, we have a $7 billion fishing industry which my family is

proud participants in. a $16 billion boating industry. we have jobs, more than 800,000 residents that are supported by the economic asset of our great lakes. we want to make sure that the clean water act is strong. now, we also are very, very proud of agriculture in michigan. we have more diversity of crops than any other state in the country, other than california. and we're working on it. so we are able to do that, in part because of the abundance of water frankly unlike friends in other states. the issues around water -- clean water, abundance of water -- for farmers, for ranchers, has not been an issue for us and we want to keep it that way. now, last year the e.p.a. proposed a rule to define the waters of the united states basically to clarify two different supreme court rulings.

one in 2001. after that ruling in 2001, the former administration, the bush administration began working on a rule to clarify this question of the waters and regulating the waters of the united states. then there was an even more complicating confusing decision -- i never thought you could actually have five different decisions out of a nine-member supreme court but that's what happened -- and we ended up with even more confusion in 2006. so both the administrations -- the bush administration and the obama administration -- understood as does everyone, that we have to fix this. we have to clarify this. -- for farmers and ranchers and for citizens and communities ands and i started in county government and understand from local government -- for local government how important that is as well. the proposed rule has been debated for over 200 days, including 400 public meltings

and over 100 million comments. i'm not sure if these a record, but pretty close. 80% of which have been positive to moving forward. the proposal was not meant to target agriculture but it has led to a lot of legitimate questions in my mind about the standing of agriculture's historic exemptions under the clean water regulations. so my amendment would help to clarify agriculture's role while maintaining important clean water protections. and this is very important. we can do both, mr. president and we need to do both. we need to make it clear the historic role in agriculture as it relates to separate actions from the clean water act and we also need to have a clean water act. so this would establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund for legislation this would ensure that the clean water act is focused on protecting water quality; uphold existing exemptions in the act for agriculture, ranching, and

forestry that have existed for decades, and our farmers and ranchers deserve to have this certainty of getting this done and having it done right and knowing that what has been going on for decades for them will be the law of the land. it also ensures we rely on scientific evidence as we examine the impact as water quawment has on the different -- quality has on the different types of water bodies and provide certainty to landowners in rural communities regarding the scope of the clean water act. we had an important hearing on that yesterday in the agriculture committee. clearly, we need to provide that certainty. -- certainty for our farmers and our ranchers. unfortunately, my colleague has an amendment -- my colleague from wyoming -- which appears to attempt to address this, but it is overly broad and frankly unclear. it doesn't even mention agriculture, doesn't mention historic exemptions of agriculture in ranching and

forestry doesn't mention rural communities that may be affected. so i don't believe that that is the direction that this senate should go. we need to be clear. we don't need more confusion. we need less confusion. so my amendment clarifies the scope of any changes made to the clean air act so that exemptions important to agriculture are maintained. the barrasso amendment unfortunately, would also roll back efforts to protect the health of the great lakes. all of us who represent the great lakes should be concerned about that. the chesapeake bay the mississippi river system, the colorado river system and so many other systems around the country and all our sources of drinking water for the united states. so i've encouraged colleagues, when this amendment comes up, to vote "no" on the barrasso amendment, to vote "yes" on the stabenow amendment and to make it clear that we support the clean water act we support decisions being made based on

science, and we also want to make sure that the historic relationship with agriculture and the clean water act is maintained. thank you mr. president. i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: mr. president i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments and call up my amendment amendment number 350. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the clerk will report the amendment. mr. blunt: i ask consent that the reading of the amendments be dispensed with. the. the presiding officer: the clerk needs to report the amendment. blunt bluntmr. blunt: okay. thank you mr. president. the clerk: mr. blunt proposes an amendment numbered 350. at the appropriate place insert the following: mr. blunt: and i would ask consent, mr. president that the

reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. blunt blun thank you-- mr. blunt: thank you, mr. president. this amendment is designinged to create a point of order against a carbon tax. this point of order would protect american families and workers from attacks on carbon, attacks on their utility bills attacks on things that are absolutely essential for families and for opportunities for families as we look at utilities and energy. carbon tax would increase the cost on energy. it would kill jobs as it increased the cost on energy and make life for families more difficult than it needs to be. at a time when we're struggling to see our economy move forward families and job creators in missouri and across the country need to be able to continue to count on affordable and abundant energy resources. we have tremendous opportunities

in more american energy. we need to use that in a way that benefits families and benefits the future. according to a 2013 congressional budget office report a tax of about $21 per metric ton on carbon would raise the price of electricity by an average of 16% in the country. and in the state of missouri, my state, would increase, according to that 2013 c.b.o. report, increase the utility bill by 27%. we're more coal-dependent than many of our states. but apparently if the average in the united states is 16% all you have to do is add that to your utility bill and see what kind of problem that creates for a bill that in many cases families are struggling to pay already. 27% in the fifth-most coal-dependent state missouri, where 82% of our electricity

comes from coal, adds a huge and new burden that wouldn't be there otherwise as people try to respond to this decision that the government could make to decide to make it impossible to have the kinds of utilities that are now available to families. the national association of manufacturers in that same year, 2013 found that a carbon tax would lead to loss of worker income and in fact would lead to the loss of jobs, the equivalent of about 1.3 million to 1.5 million jobs in the first year and as many as 21 million jobs by 2053. now more than ever we need to send a clear message to the obama administration that we don't support a carbon tax. as the administration moves forward with regulations that in fact would have exactly the same impact that a carbon tax would

have. the congress has said no repeatedly privately publicly over and over again to a carbon tax but it doesn't seem to slow down the desire to look at a regulation that could produce the same thing. these regulations are regressive. they have the most negative impact on families struggling to pay their utility bill now. they have a negative impact on the l elderly. they have a negative impact on people on fixed incomes. they have an impact on public institutions like schools and hospitals. and there's nobody, mr. president, but the ratepayer, the person that gets the utility bill, you and me when we get our utility bill, everybody we know that gets a utility bill, there's nobody to pay that bill but them. these costs are passed along by the laws of every state. there is no mythical utility company that's going to absorb these new costs if we allow them to happen. the recently proposed clean power plant would under section

111 of the clean air act act as a tax on energy by making be affordable and reliable means of electricity like coal-fired and natural gas-fired plants more expensive. also mr. president, it would take plants that clearly had lots of life left in them, and somebody has to pay for. if those plants aren't usable they don't go away. somebody still has to pay the bill and the somebody is everybody who gets a utility bill. these costs go directly to ratepayers. they go directly to consumers and they have a real negative impact on the kinds of things we should be looking for ways to have a positive impact on. these costs ripple through our economy. they inflict damage on consumers at all levels. we saw what happened, mr. president, when gas prices went down just a little bit. the decline in gas prices with the opportunity we see now with

more american energy, suddenly families felt like they had the first increase that many families have had in the last six or seven years where incomes have been flat but outgo has been on the increase. when you saw gas prices go down, suddenly people were able to do things they couldn't do before. one more meal out a week. newer shoes quicker than you thought you might get. newer shoes for your kids or yourself those things began to happen. but if you increase the utility bill by 17% or 27% or more than that if you just, all your utilities come from coal right now, your utility bill is going to go up higher than that if we go in this direction. a carbon tax would have the same impact. the similarities are clear. they're so clear in fact that under the so-called clean power act, regional authorities and states were supposed to come up with their own plan as to how to

implement it. one regional transmission organization the p.g.m. interconnect simply created an explicit price for carbon in the models it was using. whether the administration calls it a carbon tax or not everybody who looks at how they're going to provide utilities knows that's exactly what it is. so mr. president if we want to grow our economy we need to increase rather than decrease. we need to encourage rather than discourage access to low-cost, abundant available fuels and find the cleanest possible way to use those fuels. we have seen great progress in this direction. we need to be doing things that encourage that progress to occur rather than things that will absolutely and with certainty increase utility bills for families decrease job opportunities for young people. i encourage my colleagues to support this amendment that will

make a difference. i'm certainly grateful that my friend, senator thune the chairman of the commerce committee, is cosponsoring this amendment with me. and i urge my colleagues to support its passage. and i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: let me kind of -- the presiding officer: the senate's in a quorum call. the presiding officer: i -- mr. sanders: i would ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: i would like to try to, as we're about halfway through the budget debate, kind of summarize where we're at. and the very clear differences that exist between my republican colleagues and those of us on this side. and i think if the american people pay attention the differences are pretty clear. what some of us are trying to do is to take a hard look at the very serious problems facing our

nation and do our best to come up with sensible solutions to those problems. and i think that is what the budget process should be about. what are the problems facing this country? what are the best solutions that we go forward? already we have strong disagreements as to how we even look at the problems facing this country. from my perspective and i think from the perspective quite honestly the vast majority of the american people, the major economic problem that we face is a disappearing middle class. now the good news is that compared to where we were six and a half years ago, we have made significant progress. i think most americans remember that after the wall street crash caused by the greed and recklessness and illegal behavior on wall street, that at that point as president bush

was leaving office, we were hemorrhaging 800,000 jobs a month. hard to imagine. 800,000 jobs a month. my republican colleagues and i would agree say the job creation is not as strong as it should be. fair enough. i would like it to see more than 200,000 jobs a month being created. but no one will deny that 200,000 jobs a month being created is a heck of a lot better than losing 800,000 jobs a month which is where we were when president bush left office. my republican friends saip the deficit -- my republican friends say the deficit is too high. i think they have a point. it is about $483 billion a pretty high deficit. but i hope no one denies that a $483 billion deficit is a heck of a lot less than the $1.3 trillion deficit that existed when president bush left office. when president bush left office, the financial system not only in

america but all over the world was teetering on collapse. and we learned later actually that economists literally believed that the system would collapse. you put your credit card into the a.t.m. machine nothing comes out. that's where we were six and a half years ago. today for better or worse the stock market is soaring and the financial system today seems reasonably solid. no one denies that it was a lot better than it was six and a half yearsing a. so we've made some progress, despite, i must say consistent republican obstructionism. but we've made some progress. but i would be the first to agree with my republican friends or anybody else that we are not anywhere near where we should be. unemployment has gone down. the official unemployment rate is about 5.5% right now. but let me tell you mr. president, the official

unemployment rate is not the real unemployment rate. when you include those people who have given up looking for work and those people who are working part time, real unemployment in this country today is about 11%. youth unemployment which we never talk about but is a very serious problem about 17%. african-american youth unemployment which we never talk about is much higher than that. so what we are trying to do as we look out and we recognize a problem that says the american people tell us in every poll that i have seen that they -- their most serious issue is jobs and wages. jobs and wages. how do we create jobs? how do those jobs pay us a decent wage? does anyone disagree with that? i don't think so. that's the issue. so what have we tried to do in this process? what we on this side have tried to do is say okay, how do we create jobs? what is the fastest way that we

can create the millions of jobs that our country and our economy need? what economists tell us is the fastest way to create jobs is through investment in our infrastructure. does anybody any republican, democrat progressive conservative disagree that our infrastructure is in a state of terrible disrepair? that is our roads our bridges our water systems our wastewater plants, our airports, our rail system, our levies, our dams? i don't think there's any agreement. and what the experts tell us -- and i speak as a former mayor and concur with the experts -- is that when you delay work on infrastructure it only gets worse. if you do not rebuild a crumbling road, it gets worse. if you do not build a decaying

water system, it becomes worse and more expensive to repair. so what have we said here on this side? what we have said is let us not kick this can down the road, which we have for many, many years. let's acknowledge the problem and let's make serious investment in infrastructure rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges and rail system and water plants and waste water plants, et cetera. that's what we did. and we brought forth an amendment which i introduced that would create some nine million jobs in rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. nine million jobs over a period of six years. and the way we pay for that $478 billion investment i think makes sense to most americans who understand that we have major corporation after major corporation, mr. president that

pays zero in federal income tax because they take advantage of absurd loopholes loopholes that allow them to invest their money, put their money in the cayman islands bermuda luxembourg other tax havens. they make nothing in federal income taxes. so we said let's repeal those loopholes, let's raise the revenue we need, let's invest it in the infrastructure and let us in the process create millions of decent-paying jobs. so i would say that that is a sensible response to the job crisis. in terms of income and wages i think everybody or almost everybody understands that the federal minimum wage today of of $7.25 an hour is literally a

starvation wage. it has to be raised. and what we are trying to do on our side is to raise the minimum wage and i'll be having an amendment to do that. we're trying to deal with the serious inequities regarding pay differentiation in america between male and female workers. women workers are making 78 cents an hour compared to the wages paid to men. that makes no sense to me. we brought forth an amendment senator mikulski brought forth an amendment to bring pay equity. that's an important issue. we're going to fight for reform of overtime rules so that people who are making $25,000 a year, so-called supervisors at mcdonald's or burger king, they are not earning time and a half despite the fact that they work 50 or 60 hours a week. so those are a few of the issues that we are trying to focus on. create jobs, raise wages. and i have to say unhappily that my republican colleagues have

not been supportive of those efforts, but they have what they have been absolutely persistent about is they will do anything. cut medicare, cut medicaid, cut education, cut nutrition. they will do anything other than ask the wealthiest people in this country, who are doing phenomenally well, the largest corporations who are enjoying record-breaking profits, they will do anything to prevent those groups from paying more in taxes even if it means massive cuts to programs that working families are desperately dependent on. and with that at this point mr. president, i would call up -- i would ask consent that the pending amendment be set aside and call up amendment 777. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from

vermont, mr. sanders proposes an amendment numbered 777 -- mr. sanders: i ask that further reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from kansas. a senator: i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments and call up an amendment that i'm offering. it's amendment number 356. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from kansas mr. moran for himself and others, proposes amendment numbered 356. mr. moran: i ask the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: mr. president, with you in the chair i would remind you of the hearing we had yesterday dealing with veterans' affairs and the opportunity that we had to discuss the implementation of something we now refer to as the choice act.

one of the successes and in my view one of the few successes that we had -- in fact, with the senator sanders being on the floor as well, one of the successes we had last term was the passage of the choice act in which congress responding to scandal within the department of veterans' affairs the fraudulent wait lists the lack of services available to veterans who were waiting a number of veterans falling through the cracks, congress responded and passed legislation now referred to as the choice act. what that choice act said in simple terms is if you are a veteran and you are unable to receive the services you need from the department of veterans' affairs within 30 days or if you are a veteran that lives more than 40 miles from a v.a. facility the choice act allows you, in fact requires the department of veterans' affairs to provide you with services at home if you so choose, your choice. and what we have discovered,

that bill was passed by congress in august of 2014, signed by the president in september implemented since then, beginning in november, and it's now march of 2015, what we've discovered in that period of implementation is there are a number of pitfalls by which veterans are not receiving the care that we indicated they would receive following the passage of that legislation. a lot of that problem is related to the 40-mile provision. again, if you live more than 40 miles from a v.a. facility, the law says the v.a. will provide you the department of veterans' affairs will provide you with service if you so choose with a local provider. a couple of things happened. the interpretation by the department of veterans' affairs of a couple of provisions have precluded a significant number of veterans in my view from being able to utilize this choice program.

yesterday the department of veterans' affairs to their own credit decided that they had been interpreting the law incorrectly. that provision related to as the crow flies meaning that the 40 miles was to be computed as the crow flies was the way the v.a. determined that was -- they were required to interpret that provision. yesterday, the department of veterans' affairs decided they had the authority to really make that 40 miles highway miles. so if you happen to live on one side of a lake or one side of a mountain it's no longer as the crow flies. that's a piece of good news. but here's the issue that i have raised numerous times and here's the issue that still remains a problem for many veterans. i smile when i say this. there are not many lakes in kansas, there are not any mountains in kansas. so as the crow flies is not the significant issue to most kansans as it is in many other places in the country. but yesterday's decision by the department increases the number

of veterans who may qualify for the choice act. what among other things, is still missing is the idea of a facility within 40 miles. the problem is this -- the department of veterans' affairs has interpreted and continues to interpret that to mean even though there is a v.a. facility within the 40 miles, that does not provide the service the veteran needs it's still a facility within 40 miles and the veteran will be required to transport themselves to the hospital two three four hours away. i've said this before on the senate floor as a house member before coming to the senate. i represented a congressional district of thousands tens of thousands of square miles larger than the state of illinois. there is no v.a. hospital within that congressional district. we then worked hard to create outpatient clinics where routine services could be provided

closer to home for those veterans. now we're saying if you can't access the care that's more than 40 miles from you from your home, the v.a. will give you the option of seeing your hometown doctor being admitted to your hometown hospital. but here's the problem -- here's one of the problems, is if there is an outpatient clinic within that 40 miles, even though it doesn't provide the service that you as a veteran needs the v.a. says you don't qualify for the choice act. now, i'm of the view they have the ability to interpret that law differently. they say it takes a legislative change. i'm not sure that there is a lot of value in continuing to have the debate about who's right about that. what i do know is that there are many veterans in kansas and across the country who are not receiving the services promised by the choice act because there is an outpatient clinic within the 40 miles but it doesn't provide what they -- what service they need. just to give the folks an understanding of what we're talking about most outpatient clinics don't provide

colonoscopies, so you need a colonoscopy, you're a veteran the v.a. has to provide that service, and in the case of where i come from, my hometown, the v.a. hospital is three hours away the outpatient clinic is a half-hour away. because there's an outpatient clinic a half-hour away, you can't -- you can't utilize the choice act but the outpatient clinic doesn't provide colonoscopies. so you're told by the v.a. you've got to drive the three hours to the hospital in wichita to get the colonoscopy. well there's a community hospital within that area, within your hometown that provides colonoscopies. this is what the choice act was designed to accomplish, is service provided at home. so what i'm doing what this amendment does is create a deficit-neutral reserve fund that requires the v.a. to utilize its current authorities to offer community care to veterans who are currently unable to receive the health care services they need from a v.a. medical facility within

40 miles of where they live because they are denied because they have a facility even though the facility won't provide can't provide the service they need. this is something that we ought to be able to resolve. this amendment is widely supported. there's legislation s. 207 that i've introduced with many cosponsors republicans and democrats, and we'll continue to push this legislation. in vatican the v.a. committee our veterans committee has indicated they will not only have the hearing we had yesterday on this topic but also the chairman and the ranking member and their staffs will work over the recess to get this legislation front and center in our committee and presumably on the senate floor and this amendment is cosponsored by senator collins and senator king of maine senator tester, senator blunt senator toomey, senator hoeven and senator vitter republicans and

democrats from states across the country realize that this is something that needs to be resolved. and while i believe the department of veterans' affairs should resolve this, they haven't, while the department of veterans' affairs believes congress should resolve that, we haven't. what i do know is that veterans who are entitled to care are not receiving it and in a sense false promises were made ll we get this issue correct and the v.a. then implements the choice act as intended. this is an important issue and i would say just to my colleagues particularly those who served in the senate with me in the last four years in my view we haven't accomplished much in those four years but one of the areas in which we did come together, did pass significant legislation is the choice act and now we need to make certain that that accomplishment results in the benefits of those who are entitled to those benefits receiving them. who, i would ask who in this country would we expect to have the best quality health care? who would we expect? i think it would be those who

served our country our military men and women those who retired and became veterans, and i would say that the employees and members of congress, they have the opportunity of choosing a hospital or a doctor. our veterans ought to have the same opportunity. so mr. president i appreciate the opportunity to explain this amendment. i ask for support when considered during the budget consideration. i would ask my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring the underlying legislation that will follow and i thank my colleagues on the veterans committee and particularly the chairman, the senator from georgia, senator isakson and the ranking member, the senator from connecticut, senator blumenthal, for their commitment to see that this is accomplished, and i appreciate the opportunity to explain one more time why this is something of significance, and the quality of life of our veterans is affected not because we don't want to care for them but because we lack common sense to implement a law. when we know how it should work,

we know what it should say and yet we're impeded from accomplishing what matters so much. this is not a republican issue this is not a democrat issue. this is an american issue that mostly calls for common sense. with that, mr. president i would yield to the senator from illinois. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president we're engaged in an annual ritual on the floor of the senate, the budget resolution. the budget resolution comes to the floor and senator enzi of wyoming, senator sanders of vermont lead the effort to debate the budget resolution. this is not a law because it's never sent to the president. it is something passed by the house and the senate that kind of says the president told us we couldn't spend anything more than x. we'll tell you how we would spend it, which always is different from what the president suggested. so we get into a debate about how we are going to spend our

federal budget, and that's what a budget resolution's all about and we have to make choices just like families make choices when it comes to things that they buy for their families and for their homes. so i'd like to tell you about an amendment i'm going to offer which gives us a choice. first let me tell you that today on capitol hill we have visitors walking the corridors wearing purple sashes. and if you look closely written on those sashes, it says, "alzheimer's association." it's not unusual for us to get visits from people who are interested in medical issues -- cancer diabetes, alzheimer's the list goes on, as you can imagine. and they come here basically with a very fundamental request -- can you find more research dollars to help us find a cure? can you provide support to the families who are facing this disease? i've faced it so many times as a

congressman and as a senator. i use this as an illustration because alzheimer's is a disease and an issue which is becoming more dominant in america. i'm about to tell you a statistic which i didn't believe when i heard and the went back and checked and double-checked and it's true. i have spoken on the floor here about three minutes. in that three-minute period of time, three americans have been diagnosed with alzheimer's. one american is diagnosed with alzheimer's every 68 seconds in america. it is a disease which is starting to gallup across our nation and affect more and more families. and it is expensive, costly. costly, of course, to the victim who loses touch with the people they love and the life they want to lead. costly too to the caregivers

caregivers -- the children, the spouses and others who turn their lives around and start to dedicate it to caring for the person with alzheimer's. last year in america we spent $200 billion on medicare and medicaid for alzheimer's victims and, sadly the projection is in just a few years we're going to see this figure surpass a trillion dollars. it will literally eat up the medicare and medicaid programs as we know them. that's one disease. but it's one that is so serious that we have to take it seriously. i could speak in personal terms and i'll bet everyone can about cancer and what it means -- what it has meant to my family, what it means to families all across america. here's what it gets down to. will we make a decision as a nation to make the right investment in biomedical research? we have the best biomedical

research agency in the world the national institutes of health. nobody even questions that. the center for disease control right by its side and the work that they do, the department of defense, veterans administration, even the department of energy all do work in relation to medical research and medical technology. so the question that is posed to us this generation of senators sitting on the floor is, are you going to further research in areas that can cure disease alleviate human suffering and yes, reduce the cost to the government. i have found this is the most bipartisan issue in the world. i've been all over illinois and we have a lot of republicans and democrats and independents. and when i stop to talk about biomedical research, everybody's onboard. the mother can with the diabetic son. the father with a wife suffering from some form of cancer. they're all onboard they're listening.

and they should. and what i'll offer is an amendment here -- offer as an amendment here is generally just a marker. it doesn't mean that medical research will be enhanced or grow in size but it basically puts us on record as to whether or not the united states senate believes that we should invest additional money into biomedical research. why should we put more money into it? i went out to the national institutes of health, there was a doctor out there named francis collins. i think he's one of the best. francis collins back in 1988, if i'm not mistaken, was given the task of mapping the human genome. i'm a liberal arts lawyer, mr. president, so i'm lost. the human genome has something to do with our d.n.a. and tells the people who research it a lot about us and diseases we are likely or not likely to have. so they mapped the human genome, which took years to do and with that information they are making giant strides now in finding

cures for diseases and breakthroughs in identifying some of these issues. we all read about an angelian jolie and what she's going through with her fear of cancer. and it's based on family history, medical advice, and yes, something that has been found in her d.n.a. through the human genome project that leads her to be more sensitive and worried about her own health. she's a famous actress and that's why we pay close attention, but it applies to families across the board. so here's the point i'm getting to. we are falling behind in biomedical research. in the last 10 years, we have lost 23% of our spending power to fund medical research. that means that are 10 years ago, one out of every three promising research projects was funded. today it's one out of six. i don't need to tell the senator from maryland, senator cardin here because n.i.h. is in his state he and he knows what they

do and he knows the researchers and dr. collins. well, i went to dr. collins and i said to him what can we do in the united states congress to help you find cures for diseases diseases? "senator," he said, "it's very basic. give us 5% real growth in our appropriation for 10 straight years 5% over inflation. give me that, senator, and i promise you -- i promise you -- we'll pay for it over and over again in saving money on medical treatment and alleviating the suffering and disease that we face in this country." and that's what i'm trying to do. the american cures act is legislation i've put in to do that. well, what will it cost, senator? it's easy to come up with some idea on the floor that's going to cost a lot of money and not pay for it. what will it cost us? over a 10-year period of time, a 5% real gross increase in

n.i.h. c.d.c. and the other departments i mentioned,, over over a 10-year period of time, that additional spending comes to $150 billion. mr. president, in that 10-year period of time we will appropriate more than $15 trillion in federal spending spending. work the debt mel points. i'm -- work the decimal points. i'm talking about a taken to sliver of a small percentage that goes into medical research. and i'm also saying, i'm willing to stand here as a senator and promise you that medical research will pay for itself over and over and over again. i'm of an age that i can remember the fear of polio. some folks with gray hair may remember that too. when as a kid kids were coming down with polio crippled by it, many of them living in iron lungs and parents were scared to death. we didn't know where it was coming from. my mother had a theory that it had something to do with water standing in the street.

"don't you go play in that puddle. you may get polio." who knew? no one knew. but we were afraid because we knew fellow classmates who were getting polio. and then 60 years ago along comes jonas salk. every schoolchild in america knew that name. oh we didn't look forward to that shot, that's for sure, but the notion that we would be liberated from the fear of polio, that was such an amazing discovery. it was national and international news. medical research can do that. jonas salk did that. we've done it over and over again. so now will our generation give up on biomedical research? will we decide that balancing the budget eliminating the deficit is more important than a small contribution toward the national institutes of health? i hope not. the amendment i will offer will ask the senate to go on record to support this effort.

senator moran from kansas was here earlier. he has a similar amendment. i hope my colleagues will consider passing both of them. i'm going to vote for senator moran's amendment. i hope he votes for mine. let's be bipartisan on this. let's find something we can agree on. let's make it biomedical research. let's make a commitment to the n.i.h. i know that the people that we represent in every state of the union will say "you did the right thing senator. put politics aside. give the money to those researchers to find the cures for those diseases." it's not only going to save us money, it's going to save lives. thank you mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: thank you mr. president. i rise today to speak about the budget proposal that's been offered by the senate republicans that will help nebraska families and all american families to have a brighter future. for far too long, families have been paying more and forced to

expect less from an increasingly inefficient and out of touch federal government. while we've made progress, our economy is not where it should be. and unfortunately, the government spending habits, well they remain unsustainable. our $18 trillion debt it isn't just a threat to our economic security, it is a threat to our national security. it's time to offer bold solutions and we need to tackle these problems. republicans were sent to congress to stop i believe this irresponsible mentality to stop the wasteful spending. we need to balance our budget and we need to allow our economy to grow and flourish. families all across this nation, they've been forced to tighten their belts. now it's washington's turn.

mr. president, i'm here today to highlight some of these initiatives and show what senate republicans are doing to safeguard the hard-earned tax dollars entrusted to us by the american people. back home, many nebraskans are wondering how this budget will the affect their families and their lives. with that in mind, the budget we have presented will adhere to three basic rules -- cut spending, balance the budget are and do it all without raising taxes. this budget cuts $5.1 trillion in spending over 10 years. the budget preserves the spending caps put in place by the budget control act. and like many of my colleagues on the armed services committee i believe national defense must be the federal government's number-one top priority.

i have the honor of serving as chairman of the emerging threats and capabilities subcommittee on the armed services committee so i fully understand the very real threats that our nation faces each and every day. but in order for us to ensure that our military men and women have the resources and the training that they need to fulfill the missions that we give them, we must make hard decisions and we must set priorities. some red lines mr. president just won't disappear. the red inc. ink of our debt is here to stay unless we make some real changes. our budget preserves the needed pressure to compel congress to make those hard decisions in order to properly fund the security of our nation. this budget also provides

much-needed resources for infrastructure improvements all across our nation. it does this through a deficit-neutral reserve fund to build our crumbling infrastructure with a new highway bill in may. the budget resolution provides this mechanism so that a bill can move forward allowing authorizers to find either new revenue or offsets in order to extend the life of the highway trust fund. ultimately the committees of jurisdiction have to write the policies and the defense -- or the deficit-neutral reserve fund gives them the flexibility to do so. as chairman of the commerce subcommittee on surface transportation and americanent marine infrastructure -- merchant marine infrastructure, safety and security, i know that there is much work to do on our

roads, our bridges our ports our harbors. i also believe that infrastructure is another core duty another correspondent of the federal government. and for us to meet that responsibility we do have to learn to live within our means. second this budget doesn't raise a dime in taxes. not one dime. the answer to our debt crisis isn't taxing hardworking americans more. rather the answer rests in a government that's wiser a more prudent steward of those tax dollars that every american entrusts us to spend wisely. this is a very timely topic because millions of americans are preparing to file their taxes right now.

an estimate from the national taxpayer advocate in 2013 indicates that americans collectively spend 6.1 billion hours and $168 billion on efforts to navigate through our very confusing tax code and to file their taxes. you know, hardworking americans including many who work two or three jobs to support their families they should not be expected to dedicate these countless hours to comply with all these burdensome requirements. nor should they spend their money and have to hire expensive accountants to do so. when the income tax was first ratified in 1913, the entire tax

code was 400 pages. well today's tax code and the regulated rules now total more than 73,000 pages. while these regulations cause stress and frustration for families they also create financial hardships that hold back businesses, and they hold back job creators. tax day is an annual reminder that our complex laws desperately need to be reformed. i remain committed to promoting a simpler fairer tax system that provides certainty and one that encourages economic growth. moreover the vast majority of economists agree that the single best way to create jobs, the single best way to generate economic growth, that is through

comprehensive tax reform. this budget sets us on a path towards that needed reform, and it's my hope that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that they'll work with us so that we can accomplish this. let's take a moment now and look at the president's budget proposal. his plan would raise taxes by $1.8 trillion to pay for new spending. i think the president's budget is tone deaf, it's tired. it's the same old tax and spend policies that got us into this mess in the first place. there's nothing in it that actually cuts spending or addresses this mounting debt. under the president's budget, interest rates alone will triple from the $229 billion that we

currently spend to more than $769 billion a year. let me repeat that. we currently spend more than $229 billion per year on our interest alone and that's going to triple to over three quarters of a trillion dollars by 2025. that's money that we could use to reinvest in our military, that we could pay down our national debt or that we could use to improve our nation's infrastructure. i think the president's proposal is a recipe for a national disaster. our budget offers a realistic way forward. importantly, this budget helps to keep congress on track regarding the appropriation process.

for the first time in a long time congress is meeting the budgetary deadlines as prescribed by law. passing appropriation bills on time that allows us to provide the american people with more certainty in their planning for their futures. mr. president, i have been a member of the united states senate for two years. in that time, i have seen firsthand the regulatory burden that is hindering our small businesses and preventing growth. i have seen a regulatory burden that hurts families and makes it hard for them to get ahead. our budget provides a framework to lighten that burden, to litten that burden of government and reduce the cost of responding to washington bureaucrats. because of the spending

reductions in this budget, the c.b.o. has estimated the size of the economy, it will grow by 1.5% per person in 2025. that's going to provide an additional 12-7b hundred dollars in income to families each year. that is the type of growth that nebraskans care about. with additional money in their pocket middle-class families, they can save more and they can reinvest in their children and their future potential. they can buy a home. they can save for their kids' education. they can put something away for their retirement or maybe take a family vacation. in order to make this budget work, we have to address things that don't. this week marks the fifth anniversary of obamacare. that is a law that does not

work. obamacare has been harming our economy and millions of families ever since it was signed into law. i have been contacted by over 19,000 nebraskans who expressed to me their concerns and their frustrations with this law. passage of this budget provides congress the chance to send a bill to the president's desk, to repeal and replace obamacare once and for all. i'd also like to touch on some of the amendments that i will be introducing and explain how they will help nebraska's families and americans all across this nation. my amendments cover a broad range of topics from national defense to pay equity education and regulatory relief. my amendments help families. they help families to have more economic security, and they

ensure our own national security. one amendment which passed yesterday with bipartisan support will bolster the basic principle of call pay for equal work. it reinforces and it updates existing law to protect employees from retaliation for seeking information or discussing their salaries. and to my nonretaliation language it closely tracks one of president obama's april 2014 executive orders on that very same issue. this is a commonsense approach to a very important issue that impacts women all across our nation. i've also worked across the aisle with senator angus king from maine on an

incentive-based, paid family medical leave proposal. our idea is not more that one-size-fits-all red tape. it's a tax incentive for employers, particularly employers of hourly and low-wage workers. it offers a limited amount of paid leave so that workers can meet the complex family needs that they have. mr. president, a common complaint that i hear from nebraskans is regulatory overreach, particularly with the e.p.a., and that's why i have offered an amendment that would prohibit the consideration of greenhouse gas emissions under the national environmental policy act. the obama administration has proposed guidance on how federal agencies should consider greenhouse gas emissions and climate change impacts while conducting nepa reviews and this was not the intent of nepa,

and regulations like these could cause significant project delays. in my home state of nebraska, nepa reviews already take far too long, especially when it comes to our highway projects. time and resources are being wasted on bureaucratic paperwork that adds no meaningful environmental benefits. my amendment would stop these burdens and end the unnecessary process that would delay operations without improving environmental outcomes. the american people, mr. president, they want a government that abides by commonsense principles, and it is our responsibility to ensure their money is being responsibly used by this government, by us.

every day that we move forward and that we move our country forward, if we can not add the burdens on the american people that's a good day. this budget is a step in that direction. it provides the right tools to rescue a prosperous america for future generations. we have a responsibility to offer a better future, to offer a better future than the one that we were handed. so let's step up to the plate and make that happen. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: mr. president a budget is the statement of the principles and priorities of our country, and i've heard a lot of my colleagues talk about

specific amendments, some of which i support, some of which i oppose but i think it's important first to talk about the underlying budget and what it stands for as far as the principles and priorities of america, and on all counts, a review of the budget that's before us fails middle-class families in america. it doesn't invest in job growth or opportunity or u.s. competitiveness. it doesn't allow for a growing middle class particularly to narrow the wealth disparities in america. it doesn't end sequestration. and let me just talk one moment about sequestration because we've had a lot of debate on the floor. sequestration should never take place. it's across-the-board, mindless cuts no priorities. when we have been subject to sequestration, we've heard from all of our agencies how they can't plan, how they can't enter

into long-term agreements in order to carry out the missions that they're responsible to carry out. it does not allow them the flexibility to deal with the current needs. it's wasteful, costs taxpayers money, and they're not getting the benefits of those dollars. so when we take a look at the budget that's before us, it not only would maintain those levels, it actually accelerates some of the levels that would be established through these across-the-board cuts. let me just give you the objects vaigz from the center of budget and policy priority, which is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization which wrote that the senate budget cuts funding below the already damaging sequestration levels in the years after 2016 for nondefense discretionary programs. the part of the budget that funds education job training,

early intervention programs for children research and transportation, all of which are important for increasing opportunity, raising productivity and boosting long-term economic growth. this budget is also not right for our federal work force. it does not give them the resources they need to carry out their very important missions to the american people. mr. president, i just want to underscore the fact that our federal workers are the best in the world. they carry out their mission more efficiently and effectively than any in the world. my colleague senator durbin, was talking about the national institutes of health and talked about the important research being done there and the fact that they need greater tools in order to get the job done. i was meeting with constituents today on parkinson's who say look there's exciting things happening, but we've got to fund the research. if we don't fund the research, we're not going to get the

answers. we have the capacity today at n.i.h. one out of every six eligible grants goes forward. five out of six do not. just a few years ago, it was one out of three. we're moving in the wrong direction. this budget continues us moving in the wrong direction on research. research i can mention i will be later talking to, as senator durbin did the alzheimer's groups. they need to understand. last week, the cancer advocates were here to find a cure for cancer. they encouraged us to increase this year's budget at n.i.h. by $2 billion in order to get back to where we were. that wouldn't get us back. if we continued a $2 billion a year increase for three years we could get back to where we were a few years ago. so the budget adopt allow us to do it. this past week, i was at astrazeneca, at their by logics lab located in frederick

maryland. they're doing exciting things. i mention that because the work at n.i.h., the research that won't go forward as senator durbin pointed out when he was on the floor not only affects the work done at n.i.h., it affects all of the life science companies that are located in our communities. these are great jobs. this is job growth that's being held down. at astrazeneca they're working on the answers to deal with diseases based upon our own individual d.n.a.'s. that's being slowed down because of a budget that won't allow n.i.h. its full potential won't give them the tools that they need and the budget before us will not give n.i.h. what they need. i can go to the f.d.a. which protects our food supply. we have the safest food supply in the world but they need the resources to carry out the mission. i could go to e.p.a. we all like clean water. we like clean air. the chesapeake bay is critically important to my state to our

region. to this country. they depend on the environmental protection agency having the tools to protect our clean water and our clean air. this budget does not allow for that type of resources so that we can reasonably expect the mission to be accomplished. it's also costing us economic growth as i pointed out because the partnerships with the private sector is not there. let me just point out that -- another part of the environmental risks of this budget. e.p.a.'s popular clean water and drinking water state revolving loan funds all of us are fighting for those loan funds because our local governments need it to improve their drinking water capacities, wastewater treatment facility issues and we've had a majority of the senators say let's increase those funds. in maryland these funds improve -- critical water infrastructure which in turn helps us protect the water quality of the chesapeake bay. a healthy bay is critical to

alhealthy marylanders and a health he healthy communities. these communities are working hard to decrease their discharges in the bay. our large jurisdiction, the city of baltimore has used the evolving loan fund that has funded the e.p.a.'s state revolving fund to upgrade the back water wastewater treatment works. without adequate resources they can't move forward on that. look at this budget. you can't get the funds you need under these caps that are imposed on the nondefense discretionary spending, including the programs that i just mentioned. this budget ignores tax spendures. mr. president, i think americans would be surprised to learn we spend more money in the tax code, more money in the tax code than we do in the appropriation bills that are passed every year by congress.

and yet there's no attempt in this budget to rein in those tax expenditures. many loopholes who benefit the wealthiest they give incentives to companies to take their jobs overseas. there's no effort to rein in those types of wasteful tax expenditures. in fact, it's made worse because it makes room for additional tax breaks for america's wealthiest. that's not what we should be doing. and at the cost of our most vulnerable. because we make room for those tax breaks, our most vulnerable are at risk. let me give you one example function 600. this scat includes snap, formerly known as food stamps, school lunch programs and child nutrition programs, in the tax field this category includes the earned income tax credit, the child tax credit. the budget allows the expansion of these tax credits to expire

in 2017, resulting in tax hikes for tens of millions of working families and their children. the budget would make major cuts in pell grants making it harder for low-income and middle-income families too send their children to college. we happened to be on the floor on the cost of college education. it's much more difficult with this budget resolution adding to the staggering debt that american families currently are incurring. the budget fails to provide the resources so that we can rebuild america, the infrastructure investments. we talk on both sides of the aisle about the needs to increase transportation spending in this country so the united states can be more competitive create more jobs, maintain our existing systems. in maryland we have two major transit systems that we want to move forward. if you ever experienced the traffic in this region you know how congested the traffic is.

we had some help on the way the purple line. but the budget that's being submitted makes it difficult for these projects to move forward. i met with the people in regards to the modernization of our ports, the port of baltimore is critical to the economy of our state, it's important for the united states competitiveness creates a lot of jobs, and i must tell you the dredging needs of the port of baltimore and other ports around our country is going to be difficult to meet under the budget caps that are in this budget agreement. lastly on some initial observations about the overall budget agreement it's partisan. there was really no effort made to come up with a bipartisan budget. we should have done that. the american people want us to have a bipartisan budget. it won't be the budget that i want. it won't be the budget the democratic party wants, it won't be the budget the president wants but it will be a budget that we could move forward, democrats and

republicans, working with the white house to give the predictability this country needs and provide the investments so important for the growth of our middle class and job growth. i heard my colleague talk about the ability of this budget to allow for the repeal of the affordable care act. the fifth anniversary we all celebrated this past month. the budget allows for the repeal but it's interesting it doesn't repeal the revenues. it takes the revenues that we put in place but repeals the benefits. a little bit of irony in that. and it would add to the deficit, that's clear i'll give you the reason why but to use magic wands so you don't have to worry about that. so why would the repeal of the affordable care act add to the deficit? because the affordable care act has helped us reduce health care spending in this country the growth rate of health care spending. you don't have to take my word for it. the congressional budget office

said that federal health care spending between 2011 and 2020 will be $600 billion less than they previous estimated. the affordable care act is bringing down health care costs. it's bringing down the federal deficit. the federal deficit through 2025 was adjusted down by $400 billion since the january projection. it's saving health care consumers, those of us who buy our insurance use our health care system, it is now projected that because of the savings between 2010 and 2014, the years of the affordable care act, the average family saving $1,800 a year. these are results from the affordable care act that this budget will allow you -- us to repeal. look at the number of uninsured. it's been reduced by 16.4 million. reduced the uninsured rate by 35%. we've increased the number of

individuals enrolled in medicaid and chip, the achieved rate is at 17.5% in maryland that's 300,000 more in those programs. we've improved insurance coverage. we now have much better coverage covering preventive care screening tests no caps no annual caps, no life time caps. you can keep your children on your policy to age 26. you get value for your premium. if not the insurance company has to rebate the excess charges. and since 2011, $9 billion have been rebaited to health care consumers. and we've ended preexisting conditions. and if you don't think that makes a difference let me tell you the story about two marylanders jack and akeisha who came to my office last year for help in navigating the maryland health marketplace. in august of 2014 they were able to apply for insurance through a special enrollment period. while waiting to hear back about

the status of their application, jack suffered an injury. if this had happened in 1995 or five this might -- 2005, this might have prevented them from object training coverage. but thanks to the affordable care act they got coverage and it covered everything. there was no exclusions. coverage is now affordable. 71% of the people who got insurance through the maryland exchange got premium tax credits. so they could afford their coverage. in maryland we've reduced our uninsured rate to 7.8% in 2015. we all benefit from that, not just the people who have insurance. as you know, our premiums cover the cost of people who don't have insurance. they're now -- we don't have to pay for those who now have insurance. so it's in everyone's -- less people using emergency rooms. we're making the system more affordable and for our seniors closing the doughnut hole,

8.2 million seniors have saved $11.5 billion, in maryland the average shall savings for a medicare beneficiary is $1,400. no co-payments under the medicare system, the solvency of the medicare system is stronger today. but i think the most exciting thing about the affordable care act is the way that we're changing the delivery system in this country. take a look at it. on hospital acquired conditions deaths as a result reduced 17% since 2010. these are circumstances such as ulcers or infections or tramos or falls. that's reduced dramatically as a result of the negotiated. and medicare hospital readmissions are down from 2012 to 2013, 150,000 less readmissions. so the affordable care act is working. all these facts make one point abundantly clear. affordable care act has transformed our country for the better. it's brought quality affordable care to millions of americans. it has expanded coverage for

young people and working families and minorities, it's saved seniors billions of dollars over their prescriptions, strengthened our safety net and has recovered a record-breaking $19.02 in taxpayer funds from those committing taxpayer fraud and the affordable care act will continue to save our country billions of dollars into the future and the budget that we're acting upon would repeal that progress. there's other aspects to the health care that's affected by the budget including the attempt to turn medicaid into a voucher program, medicaid our most vulnerable our seniors in their long-term care needs. i would hope we wouldn't want to do that. budget allows that. and the budget just doesn't add up. it creates deficits far beyond what to do, use magic wands to deal with it. so mr. president this is not a budget we should be acting upon. there will be a lot of amendments that are going to be offered. and i'll be offering some

amendments. i know some of my colleagues have offered amendments. so first let me just point out there's a lot of amendments sheer i would hope we would what not take up and pass and urge my colleagues to take a good look at it. i'm going to mention bun i could mention many that give me a heartache. senator barrasso has introduced a bill concerning the waters of the u.s. it signals congress is uninterested in providing the clarity on the scope of the clean water act and if the proponents of this amendment use the vote to justify passing legislation either through appropriation riders or stand-alone measures to undermine the process e.p.a. is undertaking -- united taking to provide claire any education on the scope of the clean air act -- clean water act i just question the scope. we have a better choice and thank senator stabenow for offering what i expect to be a side-by-side amendment. her amendment clarifies the

agricultural exemptions under the clean water act while maintaining clean water protections. these goals are not mutually exclusive. there are many amendments that have been offered senator durbin mentioned one i hope we support on n.i.h. funding medical research. i'm working on amendments dealing with small business, i'm the ranking democrat on the small business committee to provide for credit to our companies on oral health i've -- the affordable care act advanced oral health, i will be offering some additional amendments on oral held el health and racial profiling. i would hope the senate would go on record to make it a little bit easier for us to reach the consensus we need to pass these important bills. but when the amendment process is over, i would urge my colleagues to reject the underlying budget. what we need is a bipartisan budget one that invests in

america's future with a growing middle class keeping jobs in america, reforming our tax code working together we can build a stronger, more prosperous america for all americans. with that, mr. president i would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment number -- i have to see this here for a second -- number 796. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from utah mr. hatch offers amendment numbered 796. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: i want to take a few minutes to talk about the current debate over the fiscal year 2016 budget.

isn't it wonderful we have a budget that we've reported to the floor. something we haven't had for i think it's been the last five years. under democrat leadership. naturally, there are difnses between both sides but it is great that we are using this budget process and hopefully we will pass this budget and go on from there. the house is going to pass its so i appreciate what they're trying to do over there as well. first and foremost, i want to thank the chairman of the budget committee 230r all for all his hard work in putting this budget together. he's done hard work that i think all senators can support and finding a way to navigate some pretty treacherous minefields along the way. let's look at just what some of what senator enzi's budget will accomplish. the most striking thing is it balances in the 10-year window, eventually reaching a $3 billion surplus. this shouldn't be all that

surprising mr. president but given our nation's recent budgetary history to some, it is. president obama likes to brag about all the deficit reduction that's taken place under his administration yet the president has yet to send a balanced budget to congress. more often than not his claims of deficit reduction are measured against an inflation-based line that routinely ignores the fact that almost all of the reduction can be attributed to increased revenues extracted from hardworking american taxpayers with precious little coming in the way of any spending cuts. the senate republican budget prepared by the chairman of the budget committee would achieve $4.4 trillion more in deficit reduction than president obama's most recent budget proposal. now, this is a statement about fiscal policy, mr. president with the recognition that now in the time to get our nation's fiscal house in order. the budget accomplishes its

objectives in a umin um number of ways, most notably by providing a path toward reining in our unsustainable entitlement programs. let's keep in mind that when we're talking about our entitlements medicare, medicaid and social security in particular just to mention a few, we're talking about tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities over the long term. these ever-growing programs have us on a path toward a fiscal crisis that threatens to swallow up our government and take our economy down with it. the senate republican budget with allow us to begin to tackle each of these programs' shortfalls offsetting much of the deficits and giving policy-makers in congress and the administration more room to work toward lasting solutions to these problems. with each of these three major organizations -- or, excuse me, three major programs, the budget

would help stave off fiscal calamity and give us a real opportunity for long-term reforms. entitlement reform is one of the great causes of our time, mr. president. if we're serious about bringing down deficits and debt and ensuring the solvency of our safety net programs, we cannot continue to kick the proverbial can down the road. i've been disappointed with each of president obama's budgets none of which would make a dent in our entitlement programs. this budget before us this week would enable us to begin the process of finding long-term fixes to these programs to ensure medicare, medicaid, and social security still exist in the future for our children and our granded children. in addition to putting our government on a more fiscally sustainable path, this budget would support strong economic growth and job creation; most

notably, it contains a reserve fund designed specifically for this purpose which includes, among other things, lowering the costs of investment, reducing the cost to businesses and individuals from the internal revenue code, creating a competitive finance sector, and improving congressional budgetary score keeping. and of course the budget gives us a path forward on repealing the so-called affordable care act, which continues to be an albatross on our economy and on the well-being of hardworking taxpayers. i don't see how anybody can make out a case that that's not going to take us right into real difficulties financially. anded it isn't going -- and it isn't going to work either. the budget specifically includes a repeal of obamacare's tax on medical twices. hey, there's one for you. they needed $30 billion more, so they just put in, let's sock a gross sales tax on sales for all

medical device companies. that's something i've been totally opposed to, and the repeal of obamacare's tax on medical devices is something i've been pushing for since the law was first enacted. sooner or later we're going to win on that because it's got to be taken care of. this budget does. you'll recall, mr. president that an overwhelming majority of senators -- 79, to be exact -- voted to repeal this tax the last time we debated a budget in this chamber. so i should not be the one who is pleased to see this particular provision -- or be the only one who's pleased to see this particular provision included in the budget. the budget also includes provisions specifically to repeal the individual and employer mandates, causes that i've also chafn oned here in the -- championed here in the senate. like i said, mr. president senator enzi and his fellow

senators in the committee deserve a lot of credit toker what -- for what he and they have done thus far on the budget. i am aware that i have g.n.p. the partisan climate that we're -- i am aware that given the partisan climate that we're working in, this budget has some detractors on the other side of the aisle. as i've listened to their budgets over the past few days, one thing has become pretty clear: my democratic friends haven't come up with any new arguments in a long time. rather than constructive proposals to help address our nation's fiscal difficulties, our friends on the other side of the aisle are content to simply continue pretending that raising taxes is a fix-all elixir for all of our budgetary problems. indeed they've continued with the tired de-bungt talking points arguing that every problem will be solved if republicans will simply allow for modest tax hikes on the so-called rich. 40u789show many times have we heard

that? yet even though our debt as a share of our economy is at levels not seen since world war ii, it is most often the case when my friends call for more taxes often under the guise of unspecified "loopholes" they want to immediately spend it ignoring the pile of debt that the administration has accumulated. we've been through that over and over. it is fipple for the american people-- it istime for the in he were to american people to wake up and understand what they're doing to us. i wager a few reasonable people seriously put on the spot would argue that the american people are seriously undertaxed. if you hear the arguments coming from the other side, that's appears to be their position. and yet we're taxed at the highest percentage of the total budget that we've ever been. so we've heard our comments lament the lack of tax hikes in

chairman enzi's budget, and we've already had some votes on amendments to raise taxes. what we haven't heard -- have not heard however is a plan that would line up all of my colleagues' spending priorities, which are vast and numerous with enough tax hikes to cover the cost. until my friends on the other side of the aisle either produce such a plan or acknowledge that there are not enough palatable tax hikes out there to pay pour all the spending they -- for all the spending they support no one should take their arguments against the budget seriously. let me just foints just foints this chart. let's -- let me just point to this chart. let's take a look at this chart. my friends on the other side of the aisle including the so-called buffett rule, taxes on corporate jets and oil and gas and others, they are on the record for supporting about $69 billion in specific tax hikes

that have not yet been enacted into law. yet the first democratic amendment to this budget purported to raise taxes by $478 billion. that's $408 more than what my friends on the other side have specified in the recent past. now, what does that mean? the sanders amendment which we voted on yesterday and almost all democrats supported essentially proposed to raise taxes by over $400 -- excuse me, over $400 billion with unspecified tax policy. perhaps my democratic friends would care to tell the american people how they pro-to raise that $4 -- how they propose to raise that $400 billion in additional revenue where the tax hikes will come -- who he's who is

going to get hid hit by them? i will not be holding my breath waiting for an answer. so the senate democrats' revenue raisers' will is almost dry almost completely dry, if you look at it. revenue necessary for spending the increase -- $478 billion. the buffett rule, $45..151 billion. the oil and gas $16 billion. tax compliance they say is $4.28 billion. you can go down the whole thing and the total -- the total offsets, $69.5 billion. that's a new bill. that's the total offsets they're talking about.

it's unbelievable to me. like i said, mr. president there are definitely people who want to criticize this budget, but when it comes to taxes and revenues the critics just don't have a leg to stand on. i'd like to talk forious for just a few minutes about an amendment that i plan to offer this week. my amendment addresses comprehensive tax reform. the budget also includes a deficit-neutral. my amendment would add more detail to this fund to fully describe what our tax reform efforts should look like. specifically it would make clear that tax reform should be comprehensive and address individual business, and international provisions of the tax code. it would also state that our reform efforts should be aimed at creating a tax code that is more efficient pro-growth, fair and simple. it would put in place other principles for reform as well; namely permanence,

competitiveness, and promoting savings and investment. it would set forth goals to reduce income tax rates while remaining revenue-neutral. as most of my colleagues know, i've been advocating for tax reform for sometime now. this would set this effort off on the right path. i'll have other priorities to discuss when it comes in this budget. i look forward to working with my colleagues to get them adopted. now, mr. president the senate is doing good work with this budget. it is thankfully working to fulfill its responsibilities. once again, i want to thank our distinguished chairman of the budget committee for his efforts on the budget, and i urge all my colleagues in the senate to join me in supporting this product. now, i ask that my remaining remarks be placed in an appropriate place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: thank you mr. president. i want to take a few minutes to

talking about the house's house's ongoing efforts to replace the medicare sustainable growth rate or s.g.r., formula. as we all know, the house is poised to pass legislation that would permanently repeal and replace the s.g.r. with an improved payment system that rewards quality efficiency, and innovation. this bipartisan exercise represents what congress is truly capable of when members decide to set aside their differences and work together. since s.g.r. first went into effect congress has continually acted to prevent its reimbursement cuts from taking place. this has meant numerous and repetitive s.g.r. patches usually cobbled together at the last minute behind closed doors much to the tremendous concern of our physicians throughout this country. for years this cycle has bothered members from both

parties. that's why max baucus and i set out to fix this problem once and for all on the senate side. people said that it was a lost cause and our efforts were doomed from the beginning. but in late-2013 we introduced our legislation and got it reported out of the finance committee on a voice vote. that bill, which was also drafted with the input and support of the leaders on the relevant committees in the house of representatives formed the basis for the legislation the house will be voting on this week. they deserve a lot of credit for this. it has taken a lot of work to get to this point and we're not there yet but we're getting close, mr. president. we just need to finish the job. the house bill is important for a number of reasons. yes, it includes the plan to repeal and replace the broken s.g.r. system. and i think everybody around here really would like to do that. but there's more to t the bill also includes a two-year extension of chip, the child health insurance program that

senator kennedy and i put through a number of years ago and a temporary extension of key medicare extenders that need immediate congressional action. this will give the relevant committees time to reform these programs in a responsible manner. for years members of congress have been pushing for legislative fixes that will help rein in our unsustainable entitlement programs to ensure that they're around for future generations. i personally have been working very hard on this effort. in 2013, i put forward the separate reform proposals to medicare and medicaid that were designed to be bipartisan in hopes that i could jump-start the conversation on entitlement reform. i shared those pro