>> having been through a number of these debates now the last time was when senator kennedy was with us and there was a raise in the minimum wage but one of the substantial points that is always brought up is that we have higher unemployment as you mentioned, underemployment, we've got a whole bunch of problems with employment right now and beginning wage is minimum wage and beginning skills is the reason for those minimum wages. and what we need to do is increase the skills, which we've given the opportunity through the workforce investment opportunity act i've had discussions with some people who were very offended when the other side referred to their jobs as dead end jobs. i'm visiting with a person who called it that and the person next to me said i work at burger king and i have shown up on

time, i know how to address customers, i've learned how to make change and i've been promoted supervise e and if i continue to do that for one more year, i'm going to get to run one of these. so we need to increase skills. we have a thing called climb wyoming in wyoming that allows single mothers to increase their job skills tremendously and get into nontraditional occupations and make a lot of money. which is the direction that i hope that we can go with improving america is to get people into jobs that pay substantially more and get them the minimum skills so they can by pass that minimum skill position. senator sessions. >> well, supply and demand is a real factor in the world and you

bring in more labor from abroad and the price of labor declines. cbo said that the bill has passed, reduced wages. and that per capita, the key per capita gdp in america would fall. so, that's one issue that i think we ought to think about, but without the government dictating precisely what wages ought to be and i would -- thank you. >> is it possible -- >> okay says we've got two seconds. >> i just want to indicate for the record that i think anybody who's working a full time job should not be in poverty and that's what's happening today and we're not going to grow in the economy without a middle class and that means more people working with money in their pockets. >> next amendment by senator cre

crepo. >> thank you, i am bringing crepo amendment one, which most of the februarys of this committee are familiar with. i've brought it the last two times and it's been approved unanimously each time. i hope we get the same result this time. this is the amendment that credit creates a point of order to -- to the krim victim's fund to being used and diverted for other purposes rather han the protection. it's one of the biggest changes in the mandatory spendinging programs in order tomas k our spending somewhere else by stopping this fund for being utilized for the purposes it was intended. this has $9 billion in it and congress will only allow about 730 million of those to be spent to protect victim of crime. who are we talking about? the most vulnerable. i was the republican sponsor of the violence against women act.

the women and children and men who are victims of crime in their own homes are the ones being deprived of access to these funds by congress which wants to use these funds for another purpose. these are not taxpayer dollars. these do not address or add to the debt or the deficit. instead, these are funds that are collected from perpetrators of crime and are intended to be utilized for the victims of crime. and my amendment will stop congress from what i consider senator whitehouse mentioned smelliest loopholes. one of the smelliest is this one. this would stop congress from engaging in this terrible practice and protect and preserve this fund. i'd like to yield the rest of my time to senator toomey. >> i thank you very much for offering this amendment and yielding to me. the it's been 15 years that congress has been taking hundred

of millions of dollars that under federal law should be going to victims to some of the most horrendous crimes imaginable. and not using that money for the benefit of these victims despite the fact that the law requires this. it's outrageous. and so i am very enthusiastedly supporting these efforts here. from 2010 through 2014, the fund collected $12 billion. not from taxpayers but from convicted criminals and gape gave the victims only 3.6 billion of that. it's outrageous and senator crepo is exactly right. >> i would like to be added as a cosponsor and echo my colleagues comments. this money should go to victims. thank you. >> thank you. >> rebuttal? >> as senator crepo mentioned i

suspect many of my colleagues will support this amendment. but i did want to add to it that if we are serious about helping victims of crime as i'm sure all of us are, we would not be voting ifvote ing for a budget that slashes funding for that program. the republican budget cuts 30 million from mandatory funding. that's a 72% cut. the crime victims fund represents 78% of total funding in this part of the budget. it would seem impossible these cuts would come from anywhere else but money intended to support victims of crime. i understand we've adopted a similar order in past debates, however, i want to make sure everyone understands that the real issue here is that this budget, the overall budget puts this entire program at risk. i would recommend my colleagues support this amendment.

>> may i be added as a cosponsor? >> okay. >> mr. chairman, thank you. i'll offer my amendment now build on the bipartisan budget act of 2013 and extend the replacement of sequestration through fiscal years 2016 and 2017. i don't have to explain to this committee why we need to replace the senseless, automatic cuts with more reasonable savings. i know everyone agree, but democrats and republicans across the country have said that the across the board cuts to defense and nondefense are terrible policy. it's an absurd way to reduce the deficit and they need to be replaced. i know there's republicans on this committee would have been very vocal about the need to roll back the cuts and have expressed openness to raising revenue from the tax code to get

this done. last year democrats and republicans were able to reach an agreement that rolled back the worst of these automatic cuts for 2013 and 2014 and that prevented another government shutdown. it moved us away from the constant crisis and restored education and defense and helped our economy get back on again. so, this amendment building on that deal and extepids it for two more years. it maintains the principle that democrats won't abandon, that sequestration should be replaced evely and nondefense investments and we've replaced the automatic cuts with new revenue from closing tax loopholes, which sthins budget, already contains massive spending cuts already. the principle that sequestration should be replaced with a mix of reasonable spending cuts and new revenue and finally, we had lichaj wanlg to automatically

release the defense and nondefense funding to the appripriations committee that is similar to the language we passed in the previous senate budget, so i urge our colleagues to support this amendment so we can agree on responsible and realistic numbers for this year and allow the appropriations committee to do the work. >> one of the disadvantages of this process where we don't get to see amendments in advance is that they can be a little bit dift to understand on the purr of the moment and also to have the, not having any problems with the parliament arian. >> so, i haven't been able to wade through thiz numbers yet. >> i'll let you look at it. >> i'm happy to walk you through the last budget as well.

>> i'm sure you would. >> we did end a lot of the difficulties across the board. i don't know, got relief from that, so it's not as bad as it was in the past of imposing cuts, but the sequester was part of the budget control act and after next year, spending will go up on nondefense and defense spend at 2.5% a year. i believe at this time of international danger, that defense department is going to have to have some relief, but it's not as if we have fervent cuts out there. the spending will begin to go up and maintain that increasing level over the next seven years, i think. >> do i have time? >> a little, yes.

>> i'm out of time? >> you can have a little. >> i will just say this. if sequestration is allowed to go into effect without replacing it responsibly as we did last time the cuts will be devastating across the board and i think most members know that. >> mr. chairman, i just wanted to -- >> five seconds. >> support the amendment, but say there is a way to do this right and as senator grassley knows as a member of the agriculture committee we actually cut more than sequestration in the farm bill without across the board cuts. we supported things that worked yell, cut thickngs that didn't. had over 100 different programs but did it i think the way the public wants us to by evaluating each program individually. i would hope we would do away with this crazyness and get back to evaluating programs for their wor thinkness. >> i'd like to get back to

evaluating programs because i found there are 260 programs that are out of authorization that we're still spending money on. sometimes four times as much was originally authorized and that comes to $293 billion worth of spending a year, so there are thipgs we need to do within our budget and we shouldn't be just cutting across the board. there should be flexibility built in and we should be scrutinizing what we're doing and i don't think we've done that. one of the purposes of having a budget is so that operators can get back to 2013 and make request for changes or whatever. >> which is what this amendment would allow them to do. >> time is expired on that amendment. goes to our side for senator graham. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment is not the oko

amendment. i'm talking to senator toomey about that. that is this is the fund to be set up to help was our overseas diplomatic facilities. benghazi is an example of wish we had better security. the world is getting more dangerous by the day. i think we just closed our embassy at least temporarily in idonije. i'm the senate of the foreign ops subcommittee on appripriations and we have put 5 hnt 4 billion in for embassy security. construction maintenance and world side security protection. 46.4 above the budget request. we set aside 25 million as a source of fund inging to address emerging security requirements. this deficit neutral reserve fund would allow us to look throughout the government and

try to find a bipartisan approach to put in more money in a diplomatic security, something i think we all understand we need. and it does allow not just spending cuts, but revenue, if we can work out a, an agreement acceptable to all of us. god knows what's coming our way overseas and to those who are in the diplomatic core. you earn your pay as much as any member of the military. you're in dangerous circumstances and that amendment would allow us to try and make your life a little bit safer. >> rebuttal? >> mr. chairman, is the son and grandson of diplomats who ser efed in far away place, i'd like to be added as a cosponsor of this amendment. >> without objection. senator cane the same. any other comments? back to your side. >> white house. >> all right.

>> a technical amendment. everybody has in front of us these budget document. which at some point, will have numbers in it. what it does not have is the spending that goes out through the tax code. it simply doesn't report it here. the chairman has had witnesses and the ranking member have had witnesses who on a bipartisan bases have come in and said to us that money that flows out through the tax code should be counted as spending. they use the word tax spending. but what our budget process does it is counts revenue for the basis of net revenue. so, the amount of money, $1.5 trillion that goes out the back door of the tax code and that our own witnesses on a bipartisan basis have called tax

spending never appears in our budget document, so this is a simple amendment to add that information which has been obtained from the jct and crs and extended forward. they can only do five years by our committee staff. exactly in line with economic growth to add those numbers to this document, so i hope this can be a bipartisan and unanimous amendment. it does nothing but add that element of information to the budget development. and i believe i should add noncontroversial factual information because of any dispute over the accuracy of the information. if there is, we can make technical adjust ms to fix it. it's just a question of disclosing the full budget picture in our dom document.

>> i'm glad you added that last statement. you have determined what items are tax expenditures that ought to be eliminated and i thought that the finance committee is very concerned about their jurisdiction and whether they can stipulate those things or not. >> this is just the total mr. chairman. if there's no determination about what should be eliminated this is the jct information on the amount of revenue that goes through the tax code, period. there's no element of selection or distinction. it's just the jct number. what we've done is advance it for five years because we done a ten-year budget and they do five year, but we've based it on the rate of growth of economy. that's the mechanic. >> you want to explain what the exact things are that are in there? >> this is the total -- >> you say the total. we don't work in totals. we work in details in the finance committee.

>> this is the budget, which frustrates the heck of out of me. >> this is the budget committee and we do work in totals. this would disclose those totals. >> if we know where they come from. any other comments? >> i would like to learn more about this when we leave this table and for all of us who care about tax reform it might be interesting. i look forward to talking to you about it. it might help us think a little bit down the road about how we come up with a bipartisan package to deal with our fiscal issues, so i look forward to talking to you. >> hadn't seen this until now. look forward to talking to you. >> i look forward to talking to my colleagues. there are no tricks, no traps,

no gimmicks. nothing hidden under or behind the curtain. this is just getting the information that jct publishes about the total revenue lost due to the tax loopholes and deductions as determined by jct, not some magical white house version of doing it. and then it just extends it five years forward based on economic growth consistent with our own protections. it's factual and should be in the budget. right now, we only report revenue on a net basis. >> senator portman. >> this is amendment has to do with exports. we talk about the day for more and better jobs not just to get people back to work, but dealing with this issue of flat wages. congress will say wup of the

best ways to do this is to expand exports. they pay more than average wages. provide better benefits. i met with the ohio farm bureau this morning and talked about the fact that one of every three acres in ohio is now planted for export. they'd like to export more because it means better prices for them. in ohio, about 25% of our manufacturing jobs are export jobs now. we want more products made in america, sent overseas and i think this is one where as a matter of the budget, we ought to be at least making a statement on the importance of exports. we missed this point sometimes as we talk about some of the specific trade agreements and the specific issue, wu yes we've got to be sure imports are trading fairly. we've got to be sure people aren't selling below cost and i think we need to be tougher on

that, but there's nothing inconsistent with being tough on imports, but also expandingics exports more. america is exporting well below the averages of other county tris. we're somewhere between ethiopia and tonga right now. so, huge potential here for us to not just create jobs, but create better jobs. i also believe we can do more in materials of leveling the playing field on imports and in terms of dealing with the currency issue which is an issue that does affect trade but one way to level the playing field is to open more markets to u.s. products and we're standing on the sidelines while other countries are creating marketing open agreements and that's one reason exports are not meeting the potential. that yes we have a little playing field. >> can you speak more into the

mike? can you move your mike closer when you're speaking? the table's so long. >> thank you. >> why is it -- >> spending neutral? >> doesn't involve taxes. >> in that case, i'm going to oppose it. but i think underlying idea is a fine one. if it were deficit neutral. >> now, i can't hear either side ch. >> probably be a good idea if people try to speak closer to the mike. i don't know that there's anything wrong with is that right portman's amendment per se, but i think when we talk about exports and the need to create jobs, we are about to understand that for the last 30 years, the various trade policies we've had have done just the opposite. they have failed and in my view, when you look at the pluses and minuses, the trade policies, it turns out we've lost a hell of a lot more jobs than we've gained.

we have lost 60,000 factories, not all attributeable to trade, but a lot of them. while i don't have anything to senator portman's amendment per se i would hope if we're serious about creating exports and creating manufacturing jobs, we take a hard look at trade policy in this country over the last 30 years and the proposed p prk p. >> senator. >> could we stipulate that spending neutral includes tax expenditures expenditures? that the term spending includes tax expenditures? >> who was that question addressed to? >> i'm just asking for those putting spending neutral proposals on the table if we can stipulate spending includes tax expenditure, i think many would be noncontroversial.

>> this question for you and your staff in terms of how you want to address that general issue. with regard to exports i don't think we need to get in the issue of raising taxes. the issue is being able and senator sanders is correct, we need to be stable to expand exports and i know we have a disagreement. >> why do we need to cut expenditures? >> hopefully, we don't have to. hopefully, it's going to be neutral. aren't going to increase or decrease spending. but there's no need to get into raising taxes in this area. maybe an opportunity in some other areas. but let me make one more point. how much time do i have? 209 29 seconds. okay. there are free policies and trade agreements where we have a

trade agreement with another country, it's only 10% of the global gdp. not china not japan, not europe. takes 47% of our exports, so good agreements that knock down these barriers are good for american farmers, workers and service providers. >> and we'll lay that one aside so we can get an answer on tax expenditures. senator sanders. >> who was on our side. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is an amendment to create a budget against legislation that would reduce medicare outlays below the fiscal year 2014 level. in other words, a point of order if medicare is cut. in this budget. this is a big difference between the budgets we've presented, the budgets we have presented over time and republican budgets frankly and whether it's called

a voucher or supports, the result is the same. that the republican budgets look to dramatic change the programs in ways that threaten senior citizen citizen's benefits and which frankly, we have promised them and so this would say no to those approaches. what i find also very interesting mr. chairman is that in the house, while the house has voted over 50 some times to repeal the affordable care act and take away health care exchanges in the medicare section, two pages later in the house budget, they've put in place health care exchanges for medicare. so, one might say they want obamacare medicare and change medicare to look more like obamacare, which i find a very

fascinateingeing debate. so this is an amendment that would say we're not going to cut medicare, we're not going to voucherize it. we're not going to provide a price support system. we're not going to cut outlays below the fiscal 2014 levels. >> in this budget we just took the president's numbers for what to do with medicare, but we put in a provision that it should be saved for medicare itself. shift it into other programs. >> if i might just say, given the health budget given the fact we know our desires over the years proposal after proposal for voucher systems to change from a sipg l payer structure where everyone knows they have health care to one where it's vouchers or price supports or whatever it's called and now, they're calling it in

the house an exchange. an obamacare type exchange. all these different versions, this simply says we want to keep medicare the way it is in terms of the spending and outlays. >> senator sessions. >> colleague, we have to recall that obamacare health care bill cut medicare $500 billion. and used that money to spend on a new program. so, but as i understand you're not proposing this budget doesn't propose any unwise reductions in medicare spending but i just want to recall that those cuts were to providers so they said it didn't cut medicare but it did cut money to providers in the largest

amount i've seen and the history of medicare is going up too. >> mr. chairman if i may just say, medicare benefits have increased as a result of health reform. there were frankly savings in areas where it was clear there was overspending and i think that's ha the public wants to see us do, but we don't want to go backwards. we want to make sure there are no cuts to medicare and strengthen benefits to our seniors. >> thank you. zbr senator toomey. >> senator johnson. >> i think i have a chart that

goes along with my first amendment. i think the 800 pound gorilla is that basically two third of the budget is not part of the discussion here. certainly one thing i found out in a 30-year career in manufacturing, knew how to solve problems and it starts with identifying, properly defining it and admitting you have a problem. what we're talking about a ten-year budget window problem and what we really have is a 30-year demographic problem. that's the result there. the 30-year deficit projected by cbo is $126 trillion. 8 trillion in the first decade, which is what we're focused on. 31 trillion in the second 81 trillion in the third. the entire net private asset base of america today is $110 trillion. what i find in washington, d.c.

is a lot of delusion. when we were in the white house trying to find some areas of agreement on our debt, i showed a similar graphic to president obama. and said, mr. president, the way you get everything on the table for discussion is you take this information, the depth of the problem. the definition of the problem to the american public. use your bully pulpit. let the public collectively admit the depth, the size, the problem. you know what he said to me? >> he said we can't show american public numbers this big. if we do, they'll get scared. besides, we can't do all the work. we have to leave some work for future presidents, fuf congresses. that level of denial, delusion, is what's really preventing us from tackling these long-term problems, so again we are just simply denying that reality. if cbo does publish alternate

fiscal scenario, they do it as a percentage of gdp. there's some scary charts and graphs. we've asked the cbo to convert those percentage gdp to dollars. they refuse to do that, so we do it ourselves. it provides accurate information, projections based on based on good economics. hopefully, this can be a very bipartisan deal to provide information so that america collectively understands the depth of the problem and we can stop diluting ourselves in terms of what we need to be talking about is the entire budget. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman. >> i applaud senator johnson for

wanting to educate the american people and i think as a nation, we should not be fighting about the must remembers, but urge senator johnson to add to his discussion of economic reality, not just deficits and debts, but the reality of what's happening to the middle class and the massive level of income and wael and equal thety in this country. you can't just talk about a deficit without understanding that today, 99% of all new income generated goes to the top 1%. you can't just talk about a national debt without understanding that today the top one tenth of 1% more wealth than the bottom 90%. so, if your goal and i share that, let's educate the american people about economic reality. let's talk about how we create jobs raise wages, deal with the deficit, but i am concern eded my

republican friends don't talk about the trillions of dollars and transfer of wealth that has gone from the middle class to the top one tenth of 1% so if you want to include that information in your amendment, count me in as a cosponsor. >> you actually can just talk about one section and this is a pretty simple amendment. talking about cbo that projects this as a gdp. we are all concerned about america. i am highly krped about quality. i'm concerned about the fact that federal government doesn't have enough revenue, but the fact of the matter is, economic growth, which would come about by tax reform, regulatory relief, just from 2009 to last fiscal year, we've increased revenue by more than $900 billion and that comes from incentiviseing economic behavior rather than demonizing it. we can't take a look at this as

a particular piece of information that would be helpful to the definition and admission of a problem. >> senator king. >> senator johnson, i'm all in favor of the more information, the better. i just would suggest a friendly amendment expressed in terms of dollars and as a percentage of gdp. i think a percentage is a helpful way to make the dollars comprehensible. >> i have to include that. >> thank you. >> further discussion, still about ten seconds left. okay. >> if there's ten seconds left, i'll say i am all for adding more information. i was hopeful for a moment that with all the talk about denial, we might have had a breakthrough on climate change, but i guess that's for another day. >> senator sanders, to your side. >> thank you very much. >> chairman a point of order mr. chairman.

has the suggestion been accepted as an amendment to senator johnson's amendment to add the gdp language or will we have to vote on that when it's time to vote? >> we can have the amendment, but cbo reports this as a% of gdp. >> is this -- >> happy to include it. >> so, i'm just asking -- standpoint where are we on the language suggested by senator king. is it in the johnson amendment now or not? >> it is not. i'll ask unanimous consent to include it. >> the author has the right to revise the amendment. >> revised. >> senator sanders. >> thank you very much. chairman enzi. senator sanders.

colleagues, this is the amendment to give us the opportunity secure the protection for our public lands and the opportunities that they present for our community. this creates a deficit neutral reserve fund for federal lands rural schools, payment in leah of taxes and the land and conservative vegas fund, each of these programs is a bonanza for rural america. they protect our public lands, water, wildlife, tourism outdoor recreation. they support local businesses and economies and so often these are the communities that say to washington, d.c. are we just going to be left out of this debate. this ensures that rural america has a presence in this budget and in the priorities that are important to us. and it's important that they be linked. for example, secure rural schools. many know that senator crepo and

i have worked on this in a bipartisan way. have been linked in recent years and it is to the betterment of both of the programs. for example, last year, in effect pilt was really delinked from secure rural schools. we saw many of our rural counties wake up with less support and i think that was unfortunate. the secure rural schools program is especially important because in addition to increasing logging in a sustainable fashion, this is something else that i think can be done in a bipartisan way. we have to have a safety net where the federal government owns so much of our land and does put the trees. the reality is you cannot get logging up alone high enough to not need the safety net as well and that is why it has been so important since 2000 and senator

crepo knows that senator craig and i teamed up on that. since then there's been a large group of westerners thf worked on it in a bipartisan way and i think this is ament gives us the chance to once again link secure rural schools and payment in lieu of taxes an ensure we go to a forestry policy that increases the harvest in sustainable fashion while at the same time, ensuring that we have the safety net that is so important for our communities. and i'll just close. i think every member of this committee understands that americans place a high value on clean water, salmon and wildlife habitat and quality of life in public lands bring. i hope this brings bipartisan support when we vote and i know

a number of colleagues have worked on these issue ss in the past and i hope we can come together and support these programs through this amendment and chairman enzi, i just yield back at this time. >> i appreciate the senator's comments about the secure rural schools and what i prefer to call payment in lieu of taxes. when we call it pilt, people don't understand that's taxes the federal government pays for land that if it were in private hands, we'd be paying taxes. and that actually affects 49 states in the united states. i'm not sure you rhode island got left out of having any federal properties that you have to pay taxes on, but that affects all of us. >> the chairman is absolutely right in terms of stressing how important pilt is. the reason i offered this amendment, colleagues, is is that we saw when we linked secure rural schools and pilt together, both programs won. when they were delined in effect

at the end of last year because of the complex way in which the formula is determined, a lot of the communities that reliedyied on payment saw reductions in their payments. i hope we can go back to what has successful in the past and that's part of why i offered the amendment. >> i would yield back. >> any other rebuttal? >> senator crepo. >> mr. chairman, not rebuttal. it was support. i just want to thank senator widen for this amendment and if work he does to help us deal with these problems with the secure rural schools and pilt funding. i appreciate working with him on this and hope we can pass in amendment unanimously. >> no. do we know when the vote is going to be? at noon.

okay. i think we can go ahead and vote on sessions number one, sanders number one grassley number one and sanders number two and that will give us some time to work on the others so that we can do those after the vote. sessions number one, sanders number one. grassley number one. and sanders number two. >> could you also just -- raising new revenue? >> yeah, yeah, okay. >> if everybody's got their materials, i'll call up sessions number one. gets 30 seconds.

the other side gets 30 seconds. i think i can see confusion on both sides. unless there's an objection, we'll start the votes after. and we'll have a little lunch break that includes that time of voting. hopefully hopefully, everybody can grab something to eat at that time. come back at 1:30. at 1:00 there will be a republican caucus, too. just the ones on the committee. continue with the amendment

process until offering amendments until the vote's called. that will give people more time to repair. >> yes, sir. >> 1:00. senator ayotte. we'll go back to offering. >> i'm just -- >> we're offering. there was some confusion on both sides. give people more time to prepare. yeah. >> so, i'm offering an amendment and i'm going to be making when we vote on this amendment a revision. because it is an amendment to -- >> speak closer into the mike, please. >> this is an amendment to

strengthen our civilian workforce that works on national security and military readiness issues. my, the language that is been handed out now is a spending neutral fund. i'm going to amend that to be a standard deficit neutral reserve fund because that's what i intended in the first place and i am the chair of the readiness subcommittee in the armed services committee and the civilian workforce for example at the portsmouth naval shipyard and the civilian workforce and recruiting and retaining the very best that support our national security is very important in terms of military readiness, so this reserve fund will focus on ensuring that we're recruiting and retaining the best civilian workforce and as i understand it, senator cane, my ranking member on the readness subcommittee is going to speak to this amendment and

cosponsor it with me. >> if i could speak to this, i asked for two changes. first, it was originally drafted to promote the dod civilian workforce and when i asked to broaden it to our national security workforce including nondod employee, she accepted and then i recommended we change it from a spending neutral reserve fund to a definite neutral fund which would involve two title amendments in the body she agreed to that as well. i think this is very positive on the readiness committee. we deal with this on armed services and it's posht to advance the work pool in this important area. >> senator warner. >> with the change to deficit neutral reserve fund, i'd like to be added as a cosponsor. >> without objection. without objection. >> i would like to be added, too. >> senator cane also, without objection. okay. senator sanders.

>> following that broad-based support for senator ayotte's amendment, i hope to follow in the same mold. i've got an agreement with senator johnson as a cosponsor. hesitate to say anything would be a no brainer because when i hope would be viewed as such. this is simply requiring the irs to notify americans when they're the victims of identity fraud. the gao reported that the irs paid out an estimated $5.8 billion in fraudulent funds in 2013. the irs lists the top fraud schemes, but they don't tell individual taxpayers even if they know their identity's been stolen, they don't reveal that information to the individual

taxpayers. we have been hoping for some time they would move on this administratively, perhaps if we could show the whole support of the budget committee, we could get that moved forward. this clearly is getting citizens this right to have this information. you know, they could fall the irs and find out if the irs knows they've, their identity's been stolen. that should be a piece of information the sit sepulvedas should have access to. i don't know with senator johnson wants to add anything. >> we have a family in wisconsin that they were the victims of identity theft. the irs knew fully about it for years. they were not because of law simply can't be notified. this is a very good amendment and i fully support it. >> senator ayotte. >> i would like to be added as a cosponsor. my uncle went through this as well. >> thank you. >> i, too, would like to be

added as a cosponsor. >> thank you. any further comments? okay, then that goes to senator wicker on our side. >> thank you. this is wicker amendment number one. mr. chairman and it follows along the same lines as senator johnson's about getting a second and third decade of estimates. what this amendment does though is say for -- bills that have a spending effect of a quarter of a percent of gdp over the first decade we require that the cbo give us an estimate on out into

the second and third decade. that's essentially what it does and i would think it would be a nice compliment to senator johnson's amendment. johnson's amendment. >> concerns with this amendment -- and we'll need to discuss it before the vote -- is that it is hard enough to predict what will happen ten years in the future, and if anyone is smart enough to know what will be happening 20 or 30 years from now, let us know. tell us right now. we could save a whole lot of trouble. for example, i think we all know this. in 1996 cbo projected in 2000,

just four years into the future at that time, the deficit would be $244 billion. in reality, the year 2000's surplus of $232 billion. only off by $400 billion. if cbo was unable to accurately predict what will happen ten years into the future, four years into the future, four months into the future, i suspect they're going to have a hard time predicting what will happen 20 or 30 years from now. so i'm afraid that the motivation behind this amendment is to make it look like programs that help some of our most vulnerable people in this country are just outrageously expensive, and i just don't think we can project 20 or 30 years into the future. >> well, it's only difficult to predict when it's about the future. senator johnson? >> we all recognize it is difficult to projects even tomorrow. certainly with math you can

provide some information. again, i'd rather have some information, even though you realize it's not 100% accurate but some information is better than no information. so i'm a strong supporter of what senator wicker is trying to do here as well. again, we'll take all these projections with a grain of salt, understand they're projections, but i think this is incredibly important. these programs are meant to last. ronald reagan was correct. the closest thing to eternity is a federal government program, so we should at least make some attempt to figure out what the long-term fiscal problems are with these programs. >> and do i get rebuttal? >> yes. >> you had a minute left yet. >> well let me just say actually, senator johnson is certainly correct. as a matter of fact, there are republican and democratic members of this committee that

have been working together on issues involving programs that have a lot more effect in the out years. i would think this would actually be supported by a bipartisan majority based on the conversations that i've been having with democrats since i've been a member of the committee this term. >> used up that minute. senator sanders. >> senator baldwin, do you have an amendment? >> thank you. i'd like to call up the baldwin amendment dealing with the joint committee on taxation estimates. this is very appropriate to the discussion we're having right

now about the information available to us when we review policy and tax reform proposals. section 412 of the chairman's mark is entitled "honest accounting estimates." i believe it needs some improvements to attempt to live up to that title. the chairman's mark requires that the congressional budget office and the joint committee on taxation provide a supplementary dynamic score for certain bills. now, i have my questions about dynamic scoring. i believe that it sometimes cooks the books by making tax cuts seem cheaper than they are in reality. but i do believe that we need information and we need to look at how the proposals that are before us are affecting the rising tide of income inequality and wage stagnation that is crippling the middle class.

indeed, we've heard from senators on both sides of the aisle who share this concern. so my amendment would simply require an additional supplemental estimate that evaluates the distributional effect of revenue changes across income categories. this is an estimate that the joint committee on taxation can provide. indeed, former ways and means chairman camp requested the joint committee on taxation to do just this for his previous tax reform proposals. my amendment would simply require that. in addition, the chairman of the house and senate budget committees are able to deem what is considered major legislation, and i believe that the ranking members of both the house and senate budget committees should share in that privilege. in fact, the amendment that we just saw expands that ability to

both the chair and the ranking member. all this change allows is access to additional estimates that the chairman's mark deems honest accounting estimates. and if they're honest enough for the majority, the minority should be able to have that same access. so i urge the committee's support as we try to gather more helpful and accurate information for the policy choices we face. >> there was no intent to just keep the information for the majority regardless of which party happens to be the chairman at the time. >> no, not keeping the information just for one side or the other, but who can deem in the underlying legislation what is major legislation that would then be able to acquire these estimates that we're talking about. >> now you're undoing the history of the budget committee

with that. the chairman has always had the final word on the scoring. >> although the amendment -- the johnson amendment, if i'm getting this correct, has the same allocation for the chairman and the ranking member. or was it the wicker one? wicker i'm sorry. so it would follow suit. either the chairman or the ranking member of the respective committees would make that call. >> senator portman. >> thank you. i'm looking at this for the first time. because it would in effect from what you said amend the provisions in the bill that are part of the legislation that i've introduced and actually that we voted on as a committee last time we went through this process and actually took it to the floor and had democratic support and passed it by a vote of 52 which meant six or seven democrats ordered it, including

members of this committee. so i need to take a look at this. i don't know that we want to change the tradition of this committee, that it's the chair and not the chair and ranking member who ultimately is the scorekeeper here, which is what it has been through democrat and republican majorities alike. i'm happy to take a look at it. just be sure that you understand what macroeconomic scores mean to me, at least. this is not about cooking the books. this is about providing us information we badly need to come up with good tax reform. no one would tell you that tax reform is not going to have any impact on the economy. under the score, that's essentially what it says. we may disagree at the end of the day on what the right impact is, congressional budget office, joint tax committee do this macroeconomic analysis. what the provision in this legislation provides for, which is consistent in the bill i've introduced for is to have that information available, in addition to the score. but ultimately, the chair as i

understand, traditionally has the ability to decide, you know what the score is going to be. so your amendment changes that. i think we'd have to take a look at it. i do think more information is a good thing. specifically, we need to know what the impact is on the economy. >> next would be senator corker. >> did you have a question? >> mr. chairman, i have a question about how we'll do side by sides or if we can. i have an amendment i want to combine. senator ayotte's amendment, which i'm supportive of on military readiness and national security, i think it's important we pay for that. i have an amendment that deals with being able to pay for that, and i'd like to offer that as a side by side when that comes up. we'll be combining that language. i just wanted to get in the

queue to offer that. >> side by sides will be allowed when we have a side by side. of course, that'll be pulled out of the voting order and put until later so the two side by sides can be -- >> so we can offer that then? >> yes. >> thank you. >> senator corker on our side. >> thank you mr. chairman. appreciate the courtesy. this is an amendment that i hope many people will support. it will give us more information about the long-term impacts of legislation. and what it does is require cbo to produce for informational purposes only let me underline that, for informational purposes only a 30-year score for legislation that would either raise the bca caps or authorize general fund transfers into the highway fund. now, we'd still for scoring purposes only use a ten-year score. here's the issue i'm trying to fix. last year -- >> could you talk a little closer to the mic, please? >> last year we had a situation with the highway trust fund

where we created this gimmick that we spent money for a short amount of time. in a ten-year window, we had a gimmick to pay for it that looked like it was positive but in years '20 and '30, we lost significant amounts of money. it was just a gimmick that due to timing made it look like we were actually paying for something. so again for informational purposes i'd just like for us on issues that address either the bca caps or the highway trust fund to have this 30-year score to help us see whether we're actually doing something that's lowering the deficit or not or at least, excuse me, paying for something like we say we're paying for it. so i hope people will support this. it's not a gotcha step. it's common sense. with that i'll stop. >> rebuttal? >> mr. chairman. >> he still has some time left.

senator sessions. >> i would just support this strongly. we've had other amendments relating to long-term liabilities. the doctor from boston university i believe, was a very passionate witness before our committee a few weeks ago. he said really budget balancing numbers tend not to be fulfilled in the long run. you should judge all spending by what it does to the long-term liabilities of the united states. does it increase on it long term, unfund liabilities or reduce them? i think this is one of a number of amendments we've had today that move us in that direction. >> mr. chairman, if i could, i'll be very brief. ron johnson is co-sponsoring this. i want to thank him for bringing into our vocabulary over the last period of time he's been serving here and senator purdue for focusing on that so much during these hearings. but our need to look at things over the long haul. again, this is for informational

purposes only. thank you. >> rebuttal? senator merck lee. >> thank you. my amendment, which i'm introducing with senator widen would create a deficit neutral reserve fund to reduce the cost of attending institutions of higher education with the goal of students graduating and doing so with less of a debt burden. an affordable path to higher education is a key pillar for a strong middle class but today an increasing number of students are graduating with substantial debt when they start their working lives. indeed, two-thirds of our college seniors who graduate with debt and their average debt will be about $26,000 to $27,000. many, obviously, have much higher individual debt burdens. we know that the sky-rocketing student loan debt is hurting our economy. the total amount of debt is now surpassing the credit card debt. 40% of graduates with college loans are delaying making major purchases such as a car.

the rate of homeownership by college graduates is declining. and more and more students are wrestling with whether they should attend college because of that debt load they will carry with them as a mill stone around their neck. that is not the doors of opportunity which we want to open wide. that is the doors of opportunity closing on our students of modest means. by 2020, our economy will have a deficit of 5 million college-educated workers. by 2020 60% of all jobs will require education beyond college. both for the sense of opportunity in our nation and for our future economy, college needs to be more affordable. that's why i'm asking for support for this amendment. >> the budget resolution doesn't make any changes to the outstanding student loans and won't prevent anyone from getting a federal student loan

who's currently eligible to receive one. so we're just trying to rein in the rising cost of college costs and rising debt. i'll keep my remarks brief. any other -- senator purdue? >> this amendment will create a spending neutral reserve fund aimed at subjecting consumer financial protection bureau to the regular appropriation process. while republicans and democrats may differ -- have different feelings about the cfpb making them a part of the appropriation process should be a nonpartisan issue. right now the cfpb's funding does not come from congress. it comes from transfers from the federal reserve. dodd-frank established the budget as much as 12% of the fed's annual operating expense.

this is roughly 600 million without any congressional oversight. congressional oversight, in my opinion, of this agency should be a constitutional function. this agency has already proven it's not a good steward of expenses. a prime example is the cost overruns of the renovation of the cfpb headquarters currently. the federal reserve inspector general just estimated $120 million cost overrun of that renovation. current estimates put the renovation at $600 per foot. according to the house financial services committee. that is more per square foot than it costs to build the bellagio casino at 330. mr. chairman, i enter it in for consideration and at the appropriate time. thank you. >> mr. chairman? >> senator sanders. >> i speak in opposition to this amendment. no other bank regulation agency is subjected to regular appropriations subjecting the cfpb to appropriations it just one way of singling out the one

regulator which by statute is a consumer advocate and this amendment would weaken a very, very important agency. the cfpb has been successful. it is working. it has helped some 15 million consumers who will receive relief from unsafe financial services products. it has ordered $5.3 billion in consumer relief. if you want to continue to protect consumers i would urge a no vote on this amendment. >> mr. chairman? can i be recognized to say a brief comment about this amendment? >> senator toomey. >> i'd like to ask unanimous consent to be entered as a co-sponsor. i think the senator from georgia is correct. the cfpb is completely unaccountable. there's no accountability to congress. it has exceeded its authority,

in part because it's not subject to congressional oversight and it's frankly outrageous that they're able to operate with a budget that they have and the latitude they have without having to come to congress for this oversight. so i thank the gentleman from georgia for offering the amendment. i join him. >> i think senator kain has an amendment to offer. >> i do, mr. chair. i will be brief. i believe it has some good solid bipartisan support. two of my colleagues here on this committee senators baldwin and portman, are together with me, the co-chairs of the senate career and technical education caucus. this amendment is a deficit knew ral reserve fund to support legislation encouraging more cte innovation to prepare students for the 21st century work force. i'm the son of an iron worker and i ran a technical school in honduras for a year and learned there. since the power of cte, it was kind of put into the shadows of

american public education for a number of decades, but now it's back strong. and there's some wonderful programs around the country about 30% of jobs by 2018 will require some kind of technical training. so i'm establishing a deficit neutral reserve fund to advance this priority, and i believe both senators baldwin and portman are co-sponsoring. >> i don't see any rebuttal. there is a vote in progress. so we'll recess now until 1:30. at 1:30 we'll begin the vote process. you can go and vote, get some lunch. for republican senators, we're going to meet in the ante room out here at 1:00. recessed.

so as you heard, the senate budget committee taking a break to head to the chamber for votes. senate lawmakers will continue today working on trying to break the stalemate that is preventing progress on an anti-human trafficking bill. up to two votes could be taken today. this would be the fourth and possibly fifth attempts to move the bill forward. you can see live coverage of the senate on our companion network c-span2. we'll return to live coverage of

the senate markup of the 2016 budget proposal when it resumes around 1:30 eastern on c-span3. the house budget committee earlier today approved the republican budget proposal along party lines. it's said to be considered next week. today's white house briefing is coming up at about 12:30. we're planning to bring you live coverage on c-span3. right now house speaker john boehner in his weekly briefing from this morning. >> morning everyone. the house continues to listen to the american people and focus on their priorities. next week we'll take up a balanced bucket edd budget that puts the middle class first by expanding opportunity, not government. our budget is about the future. it addresses our spending problem and focuses on building

an economy from the ground up. completing work on a budget is always one of the toughest jobs we have all year. the budget committee has done good work today, and we expect the committee to approve its proposal. but there is overwhelming support in our conference for providing additional resources to protect our national security. in consultation with chairman price next week, the house will consider a rule that reflects those priorities. we have been and will continue to work with all of our members on this issue. next i'm encouraged by the progress our committees are making to permanently resolve the so-called doc fix. as you all know, we've had to patch these doctor payments 17 times over the last 11 years. i've been committed to finding a permanent solution to this problem. it's a chance to get rid of washington's most infamous

budget gimmicks. but it's also an opportunity to make structural reforms to medicare that mean better health care for seniors and real savings for taxpayers. again, i'm encouraged by what we've seen and hope we can solve this problem once and for all. on benghazi as i said on tuesday, secretary clinton must hand over her e-mail server to an independent, third-party arbiter. in terms of who that could be chairman gowdy has already discussed a few examples. a federal inspector general a retired judge, a professional archivist. all of those choices would be imminently fair and reasonable. we need the secretary to do the right thing here so we can get to the facts about what happened before during and after an attack on our people. lastly let me congratulate my

friend benjamin netanyahu on his party's victory this week. the prime minister recognizes the grave threats we face from radical islam and from iran. that's what he talked about in his speech to congress. this is an opportunity to renew our commitment to confront these threats and of course to continue to strengthen the bond between israel and america. >> speaker boehner, the house gop budget, you guys repealed -- [ inaudible ]. is there a republican replacement for that? >> our committees are continuing to work on that. i'm sure we're going to see one soon. >> how soon? >> we'll see one soon. >> one that covers 16 million people? >> [ inaudible ]. >> that's correct. >> [ inaudible ].

>> no i think -- listen chairman price and the budget committee have done good work. but in consultation with mr. price and the budget committee, we agreed this morning that the rule will reflect a higher overseas contingency account number to reflect the wishes of the large majority of our members. >> [ inaudible ]. >> no, no, no. we've walked everybody through it, and we think we're in a good place. >> on the medicare reform doc fix you mentioned, you laid out why that's a priority for you. you've approached this issue differently than other big fiscal issues that have deadlines and cliffs that are worth a lot of money in the past. can you explain why you approached this differently why you dealt directly with leader pelosi on this and why this is a different scenario?

>> if we go back to last year, we asked our committees to work on the policy for what a doctor payment schedule should look like. both ways and mean committee and the energy and commerce committee in the house and their colleagues over in the senate frankly came to an agreement on a new schedule for how we would pay doctors for medicare. the agreement then was that the leadership would look to find appropriate offsets. and in conversations with my democratic counterparts going back to early, mid-january, we began to discuss some of these structural reforms that have been on everyone's list for some time. and those conversations have been productive. they continue. i'm not going to say we've got it all resolved yet, but i'm optimistic we will get it resolved. >> mr. speaker, is it a different approach or strategy

you've used in the past? you haven't made this deal with your conference and said take it or leave it to democrats. you've done it the opposite way. >> i think there was an opportunity that presented it itself to work in a bipartisan way to find the appropriate offsets, spending offsets, and the door opened and i decided to walk in it. as simple as that. >> [ inaudible ]. >> well, i have to tell you i was a bit stunned by the announcement, but i think i expect and the american people expect members of congress to be held to the highest ethical standards. and i think mr. schock made a decision. frankly, i support the decision he made.

i do think there are ample controls in place to deal with the allegations that are involved here. but understand something. something is going to violate the rules they're going to violate the rules. and in almost every case sooner or later, it catches up with you. >> have you spoken to mr. schock? >> i have not. >> [ inaudible ]. >> the committees are continuing to do their work continuing to have hearings and when we have more to report, we will. thanks, everybody. all right, one more. >> [ inaudible ].

>> well, i invited the prime minister of israel to come because we have grave threats that face our nation. he as prime minister of a small country in the middle east, i thought, was in a perfect position to help describe that threat to the american people and for that matter to the rest of the world. so i'm happy he came. i think he gave a forceful, very clear speech, and i'm happy he came. >> [ inaudible ]. >> lukewarm? [ laughter ] >> are you xavier or kentucky for the tournament? >> xavier. eventually, maybe. >> house speaker john boehner and his weekly briefing from this morning.

earlier today at about 10:45 today, minority leader nancy pelosi held a briefing for reporters while she gave an update on issues facing congress. >> good morning. good morning. i know you're there. i see you. i hear you breathing. good morning. since we saw each other last we've had a break. during that time many of us went to selma for the 50th anniversary of the march. it was a beautiful commemoration. the president spoke so magnificently about what we were observing that day. it was so important for him to say the march is not over. we have so much more work to do.

and today house democrats are introducing a voter empowerment act, the voice and vote of every american must be heard in our democracy. we must pass and strengthen the voting rights act. it's been a long time now since last year that the supreme court struck down parts of the voting rights act. it's long overdue for us to correct that. under the leadership of john lewis, mr. clyburn and others today we'll be introducing the voter empowerment act. today, also, on the floor of the house, republicans are making harder to vote and join a union. the attack on the ability to bring labor elections and regulations into the 21st century. it's an outright attack, not just on unions but on the right to organize. the right to organize has been such a fundamental principle for

progress for america's working families. today we expect to see a republican budget. i don't know if that will be possible. they were supposed dd to go back in this morning. i don't know if they have. as we have discussed before, a budget is supposed to be a statement of our national values. what is important to us as a nation is where we should be allocating our resources. instead, we see a republican budget which isn't. it's a budget so far that we have seen of it, because they haven't passed one yet, as you know. but their initial statement is what we would describe as work harder for less. harder to buy a home, harder to send a child to college, harder to secure a dignified retirement. again, it's the same-old same-old warmed over stew. it green lights the massive

romney/ryan tax windfalls to the ultra wealthy while forcing higher taxes on hard-working families. so far what we've seen it ends the medicare guarantee for seniors, turning medicare into a voucher program and forces current seniors to pay for more preventive services. in terms of education, it forces deep education cuts for students and makes college less affordable, freezing for ten years the amount of a pell grant. that really helps -- when i say the poorest, i don't mean poor in any way except economically needy kids to get a college education. it doesn't invest in the future. it takes over $700 billion over ten years in cuts in the domestic agenda and to even

deeper cuts to keep america number one. you've heard me say over and over again the best way to reduce the deficit, nothing brings more money to the treasury than investments in education. investments in education of course, are wonderful for people to reach their aspirations. a family can make no better investment than in the education of its children and a country can make no better investment in the education of its people. innovation begins in the classroom. education is essential to keeping america number one, and yet this is a budget that is counter to that. and that's why i was so pleased when some of you were here the other day when we talked about introducing the refinancing act. joe courtney has taken the lead. senator warren in the senate. all of this comes down to a message that we need bigger paychecks, better

infrastructure, investments in education so that every family in america, every hard-working family in america can realize the american dream. pleased to answer any questions you may have. yes, ma'am. >> [ inaudible ]. are you concerned criticism could pull your members away? >> he wasn't talking about simpson-bowles. he was talking about the framework of simpson-bowles. now that barbara mcikulski has said she's not running, almost every member of the delegation is looking at the race and subscribe to strengthen medicare as they did in the affordable care act and strengthening

social security. that would apply to mr. van hollen, to mr. cummings, to mr. de lay delaney. who else is running? everybody. not everybody. i have every confidence in mr. van hollen. he's gone to the table bringing values to the negotiating table under any one of these configurations. in every case, quite frankly, he has been the champion on these issues. but again, a value that he shares with the other candidates who are running as well. >> are you working directly with speaker boehner on the doc fix? how do you see it moving forward? >> well you'll see. it will come forward. i think we'll put out some framework today. i believe it will be ready to go

out today. and more particulars when we post the bill. yes, we've been working on that. it's something that has to happen. it's not a doc fix. it's a fix for american seniors so they can continue to see their doctors under medicare. and some other priorities that will expire soon. we want it to be in advance of. as you know the sgr, as you call the doc fix, expires in just a matter of days. >> how's it been working with leader boehner on this? >> i've always had a good rapport with the speaker. yes, sir? >> [ inaudible ]. >> of course, yes. you're both speaking at once. i'm sorry. i'm sorry, what is your question? >> [ inaudible ]. >> that's your characterization of what he does.

many of these issues have not been partisan ever. transportation and infrastructure have not been partisan issues. we've all been able to work together. all of us have a responsibility to try to find our common ground in terms of getting the job done for the american people. where we can't find common ground, we have to stand our ground. nonetheless, we have to try. sometimes our differences are regional. sometimes they're philosophical. sometimes they're generational. i call it the giant kaleidoscope. you never know when you turn that dial who's going to be part of the formula for passing a bill. so we're always a resource to each other and hopefully this will be a good example of how we go forward. >> [ inaudible ].

>> i have no idea. you have, like about five hypotheticals in there. i have no idea. i think we're on a path where everybody understands the seriousness of extending addressing the sgr the so-called doc fix, so that seniors can have access to their doctors under medicare. that's very important and we understand that that has to happen. i don't have the faintest idea what's going on in the republican caucus right now. we don't know if they have the votes to pass a budget. so i can't speak to what has an impact here or there. you have to go ask them. so i'm just being very honest with you. i haven't the faintest idea. >> is there a scenario where you would help them on a budget? >> on a budget? as i said a budget is a statement of values. this isn't about issues.

it's about values. it's about the ethical responsibility we have to invest in the future of our country. i would hope we could come to agreement on different parts of it but i haven't seen any budget they've put forth in a long time that does anything more than take us back to the failed economic policies under president bush that took us to the brink of a depression, took us into a deep recession, and now they want to go back to a budget that does exactly the same thing. yes, sir? >> new topic. on the isis fighters how do you characterize them? should they be called islamic jihadists or a variation that has a religious connotation? >> terrorists. i'd use one word. they're terrorists. that's the word that i would use. >> do you think the president is right in avoiding a certain tone or characterization? >> well the president calls them terrorists. i agree with that

characterization. yes? >> [ inaudible ]. >> i have a concern that this isn't really about e-mails. it's about a partisan investigation by a select committee that has spent millions of dollars and produced nothing. i think we're going to just see the ongoing attempt to investigate hillary clinton, whatever the subject. whether it's her e-mails or hair or whatever it happens to be. so that's what i'm concerned about. if the fact is -- the speaker says that her server should be turned over. well, i think that hillary clinton should not be treated any differently than any other secretary of state. even if you just said in this

century, where technology has moved forward and this kind of subject would not come up about a server and about e-mails a number of years ago. communications, yes, but not this particular stamp on it. so i would say, let's see what other secretaries of state what their practices, what the statuses of their server, and maybe that would be an interesting contrast. >> [ inaudible ]. >> i think it's a mistake for those committees to continue a political investigation of hillary clinton, and that's what they seem to do. their organized purpose was supposed to be an investigation that produced some information already obtained by the intelligence committee, which made its report. it seems to me a big waste of

taxpayer money. again, whatever is determined here is about the future as well as what happened in the past, but if we're talking about the past let's talk about at least since the year 2000. >> on the doc fix deal is your own caucus behind it supportive of it? >> our caucus is very enthusiastic about ending this whole discussion uncertainty of the sgr that has existed for years. for a long time, our caucus has been ready to take the action that we're taking now. we'll see. we'll see when we see the final bill what their enthusiasm is for. but i'm very proud of the work of our ranking members on the subject, and i think -- right now -- but of course it's not finished yet. when it is finished, people will

see what it is and then we'll see who wants to vote for it or not. yes? >> just want to get a quick question in. in the wake of aaron schock's resignation, do you think there should be ethics training mandatory for members of the house? >> i think it's important to -- i spent seven years on the ethics committee. nobody's spent seven years on the ethics committee. i couldn't utter a word to anybody about where i was going or what i heard. yes, i think it would be important for members to have -- members and their families and their staff to have the ethics training. the responsibility is with the member. but i would like to think that what happened in that particular case is so outrageous and so

unusual that i don't think it should trigger the ethics training. i think we should just do the ethics training, period, so everybody has a comfort level as to what is personal, what is official what is political. that's really where lines are crossed. >> did you worry a lot of new members, that there really needs to be a beefed up -- >> it's not a question of need to be. it would be a good idea to do. i don't think need to be because there's a fear of violation. i just think it's a great comfort level for people to have, just as i think -- i would like them to know more about jefferson's rules of the house and parliamentary procedure so that they can be their most effective self. so that when they set up their offices, they do so in a way that has the benefit of what certainly must get in their orientation. we always had that strong ethics piece, what are the rules of the

house, what -- again separating political, personal, official. >> you mentioned comfort level. are you comfortable that in general the house members are mostly ethical? >> i'm more concerned about money and politics and what that means to the ethics of our country. that's really what i'm more concerned about. so if you want to talk about ethics, i think we should be talking about reform of the political system. not that -- i'm not accusing anybody. i'm just saying in the public mind, in the public mind there's a skepticism, there's a cynicism that money plays too much of a role. and if it isn't corrupting, it's certainly corroding of our democracy if most people think, why should i even vote because money plays such a big role. so that is one place where i would place an emphasis to increase the comfort level, not of me, what does that matter, but of the american people and the confidence they have. thank you, all, very much.

>> just one possible final question. >> yes, for you. >> -- apparently protocol they destroy tapes after 72 hours but there are two other tapes. what do you make of this whole episode? >> well, i want to support the secret service in protecting the president and the executive branch as they do. i'm not into housekeeping for them in terms of how they have accountability, but i think even their leader has said that there needs -- some of this needs to be addressed. but you know more about what you just described than i do in terms of the facts. again, whatever it is we want to have a secret service that protects our president whoever he or she may be and that also our candidates as we gear up for

the election. thank you very much. thank you, all. >> well in about 40 minutes, about 1:30 eastern the senate budget committee will continue its markup of the gop's 2016 budget. this is a live picture from inside the heart senate office building. committee members are in recess for votes and lunch. we'll have live coverage when they return here on c-span3. also coming up, today's white house briefing with spokesman josh earnest. that's expected to begin shortly. we plan to have it for you live also. right now, a conversation with a reporter who covered federal reserve chair janet yellen's statement on the state of the u.s. economy from today's "washington journal." >> craig torres a reporter with bloomberg news to talk more about what we heard from the federal reserve yesterday. so james, let's begin with this

two-day meeting. what did the federal reserve say behind closed doors about interest rates? >> well, they're getting ready after keeping interest rates at zero since december 2008 to raise interest rates. the economy is doing good. just short of good enough for, i think, chair janet yellen, but getting closer. for the first time in more than six years, we're going to see rates rise. >> okay. so when? >> when that's the question. i think they want to see inflation move up a little bit. inflation's very low in this country. part of it is due to the existence of labor market slack. there's still a lot of people working part time who want full-time jobs, and part of it is, you know, wages aren't rising. they haven't risen during the expansion. so they want to see a little bit

more tautness in wages, a little more firmness in prices. that could take nine months, it could take a year. >> some are saying before this meeting that you should look for the fed to raise the rates in june. is that what they're still saying then? >> so i was thinking this morning, you know, i'm a financial journalist. i look at economic indicators every day sitting in front of my screen. the amount of cheerleading that's going on around the monthly job numbers, which are indeed strong, don't really reflect chair janet yellen's view. she's very focused on how long it takes to get a job. you know it takes more than 30 weeks now if you're unemployed to get a job? that's a long time. there's still like 6.5 million people stuck in part-time work. i'm finding her a very perceptive economist and she's

in no hurry. let's put it that way. >> so she's in no hurry, but what about when the federal reserve finally does increase the rates how quickly will they do it? >> this is what's very interesting. i'm glad you asked that. in the past cycles of interest rates, we've seen this sort of stair-step climb, right. they go up one meeting. they go up the next meeting. this is from very low rates in 2003. this time around that is not going to be the approach. it's a little bit like walking down a mountain in the fog. you take a couple steps, you look around, you see where you're going you take another step. it's going to be a much slower, more deliberate path to higher rates. >> so craig torres, what does this all mean for consumers? >> for consumers it means your

credit costs are going to rise slowly than they have in past economic cycles. it means the fed chair wants a little more tautness in the labor market. so fewif you don't have a job now she's hoping that the time -- your search time and your pay -- your search time's going to go down. perhaps the pay you're offered is going to go up. i would say the federal reserve is on the side of labor here. they want to see more firmness in the job market. >> are they listening to the concerns of those that say if you raise the rates that impacts wages and you'll see even more income inequality. >> yeah it's a terrible problem. i think monetary policy contributes to it a little because interest rates affect asset prices. and keeping interest rates low as we saw yesterday, the signal from the fed is we're going to

be very slow moving and cautious here here, so the stock market rose. anybody with assets is benefitting. those who don't have assets, a house, a mutual fund portfolio, are not benefitting because they're just trading their labor for dollars. again, i think janet yellen would like to see people trading labor for dollars get paid more. but then there are the secular trends in the economy that have to do with the high level of skill employers are demanding. those other segments of the government are going to have to take care of education. >> finally does the federal reserve and does chairman yellen listen to concerns from other countries? and also, the leader of the imf, christine lagarde, who's warning that if you raise interest rates, this has an impact on other countries around the world. >> yeah, i'm sure they're listening. i'm not really sure how she's going to approach that. part of the slow approach, i think, now that we saw yesterday

is out of concern that other countries are cutting rates, cutting rates below zero as we saw in sweden yesterday by the way. and her feeling that you can't totally decouple from the rest of the world. that said, those countries have their own monetary policies and they can adjust. that was bernanke's view. i think yellen has further to define herself on this. we'll see if she goes forward. >> all right. craig torres reporter with bloomberg news. appreciate your time. >> sure. >> well, we're still planning to take today's white house briefing when it begins shortly. also looking to return here to the senate budget committee's markup of the gop's 2016 budget. this is live picture inside the heart senate office building a committee room there. the committee expected to resume shortly at 1:30 eastern. we will return to live coverage at that point. right now, though, a discussion on the administration's nuclear talks with iran from today's

"washington journal." >> congressman chris stewart, republican of utah serves on the intelligence committee, also a member of the appropriations committee. new to our table. let me tell you about him. served 14 years as a pilot in the air force, flying rescue helicopters and b-1 bombers. holds three world-speed records, including the world's record for the fastest nonstop flight around the world. served as president ceo of the shipley group. he's written 17 books, several of which have become national best sellers. thank you for being here. >> thank you. it's a pleasure to be with you. >> i want to start with your personal background. we had you on to talk about iran nuclear negotiations. talk about your experience with the start negotiations and the inspections that took place then and how that impacts your thinking now when it comes to iran nuclear negotiations. >> well, i think it's a good example of how the background and the experience that we as members bring to congress can

make a difference and make an impact on how we approach various things. honestly, i wish we had more members who had served in the military than we do now because, as your show indicates this morning, it's one of the great challenges of our day. now, i was at the time a captain. i wasn't a general. so my view of this was very small. it wasn't the big picture. i wasn't a negotiator nor the secretary of defense or at that level. but i was involved with implementing. i was one of the pilot reps in implementing the agreement with the former soviet union. so we would work with other pilots and with the inspectors when they came to our base or other facilities here in the united states, and it became clear to me then that if someone wanted to cheat on an agreement -- in fact, i made this point in an editorial in "the wall street journal" in the last week or so. if someone wanted to cheat on an agreement, that certainly could. there's no question they could. that's why this element of trust between the two parties is just such an important part of having

a successful agreement. i'm not sure that we have that yet with the iranians. that's very concerning to me and very concerning to others as well. >> how do you know that element of trust isn't there? >> well, as i said to secretary kerry last week, i believe, when he appeared before one of our committees on the appropriations, i asked him, can you give me a single example, any example at all of where this regime has worked with the united states or any of our allies in a positive way? because i can go down a long list of where they have been destructive to our interests or to interests of western allies. and we could start with hamas and with hezbollah and how they've interfered in yemen now. even in central and south america. again, the list is longer than that. and so tell me now, where have they ever worked with us on anything? and the truth is they haven't. and with the former soviet union, we had decades of working with them on previous

agreements. we did have a foundation of saying, we believe it's in both of our interests that we work together on this and we just don't have that basis with the iranian regime. and it's it is so important that these negotiations have some kind of verifiable process and i'm really worried that that may not be -- that may not be possible? >> how do you think the iranians could cheat. >> oh, gosh, i mean honestly, there is an unending number of ways. let me take something very simple. it -- with the start treaties, one thing you had to do is they had access to certain facilities at anytime without any prior negotiation, they could show up immediately and say we want to see this and this and this and we have to open all of that up to them. if they say, hey, we want to go over there we want to take a look at that facility that wasn't part of the treaty. and they had no ability to do that at all. they could easily be denied that. that would be the case as just one example with the iranians.

we would have access to certain facilities and they could easily move the facilities somewhere else and that wasn't part of the negotiations. put 100,000 century futhz and havewe don't have access to that. he created this false narrative well, the alternative is going to war he says you know. we have to have agreement or we have to attack them. that's not true at all. it is not a or b. there is many other options. and i think the most obvious option, if this is a bad agreement, let's negotiate a good agreement. that's what many of us are saying is let's just keep the pressure on, which is why i think that this talk of sanctions and the proposal in the senate that i hope will come forward very soon to strengthen and to reimpose the sanctions if they walk away from the table that's a very valuable tool. we could bring them or keep them to the table to negotiate an agreement that is much more in the national interest of the

united states and our friends and our allies in the region. it is not an option let's go to war or have this agreement. it is an option of this agreement is a good start maybe, but it is not sufficient. let's keep going and press for a better agreement. >> very few details are known about these negotiations about what this deal may be. you serve on the intelligence committee. have you been briefed about the finer details? >> to some agree grisdegree, but not a sufficient degree. that's very concerning about this. president kennedy president reagan, president johnson, others came to the congress and said here is an agreement and i want you, the senate, to ratify this. i want this to be a partnership with us. this president said exactly the opposite. he said i'll bypass the senate. i'll take it to the u.n. i'll submit this to the chinese and to the russians before he'll submit it to the united states senate. i just think that's insane. for heaven's sakes, we want to work with him to protect u.s.

interests. and you say, you're too restrictive, i'll bypass you. one of the concerns we have is to the question have we seen some of the details of this agreement and the truth is we haven't. >> if you haven't, how can you say as republicans are saying that's a bad deal. >> we have seen the framework. and based on what we know about the framework we know unless the framework isn't what they told us it is, the framework is a bad deal. >> what is the framework? >> for example, it has a timeline, maybe as short as ten years. maybe as short as six years. and we started from this position that the united states always said we will not allow iran to develop nuclear weapons. and seems like now we're saying we might allow two in ten years or maybe six years. and we have said we will not allow them to keep the infrastructure, the centrifuges and other things. well, maybe we'll allow them so long as they don't actually use them or they don't -- they're not in the process of breaking out and developing the weapons. we have said now that we'll allow them maybe a year to

become a threshold nation in which case they can develop nuclear weapons within a year. reality is that may not take a year, it may take six weeks. just that much of the knowledge that we have about the treaty is enough for us to know, this isn't a good idea. >> is it realistic to say the united states will never agree to allowing iran to obtain a nuclear -- >> absolutely. of course it is. we have said that for you know, decades now. and that should be our policy and we should stand by that policy and, by the way, it is not just iran that will have nuclear weapons if they're successful. every country in the region will. do you think saudi arabia is going to stand by and say, that's okay with us we're cool with that, let them do that and we won't or turkey or qatar or any of the others. it would have an explosive and dangerous arms race is iran moves forward on this. we're trying to not just denuclearize or to prevent iran from having nuclear weapons, we're trying to prevent the

entire reegen from not having nuclear weapons, but iran is the key. >> all right, well let's get to calls. artie is up first in d.c. a democrat. you're on the air with congressman chris stewart. go ahead. >> good morning. thank you for allowing me to call. i have a quick question about something you said a few minutes ago regarding the united states and iran never working together. why would iran and the united states work together on the united states was actively pursuing a foreign policy hostile to iran going back to the '50s with the crew, isn't it obvious that iran doesn't really trust america and shouldn't we give the negotiations a chance to see what the two sides can come up with before we criticize the plan? >> thank you. i guess i would reject maybe the premise of your question and that is the reason these negotiations will fall is because the u.s. hasn't been a good partner with iran or aggressive towards iran. i could go a long, long list of

where iran has been destructive to u.s. interests and to the interests of our allies. and in a deadly way, let me mention one of them. that is the shia militia that we're operating in iraq for years, killing american soldiers, primarily through, you know improvised explosive devices and other means there are hundreds of americans who have been killed by this regime in the last decade alone. they have got 60,000 rockets with hezbollah north of israel. they got something like 100,000 in other areas as well. we go back to the embassy in '79. that's what started this regime. but since that time, they have always said that the united states is a great satan and they would seek to destroy us if they could. i just don't accept that the reason that these negotiations may fail is because the u.s. hasn't been a trusting partner

or the u.s. has sought to harm them. i don't think that's the case. >> claremont california, don, republican. go morning don. >> goodmorning congressman stewart. as an ex-marine i see what the civilians don't understand the risk and how long it takes to be prepared as a military. and the congress you know president obama has enough authority under the existing war powers act to do something but he's reluctant to. judging his reaction to israel, where he's not backing netanyahu, it befuddles me. we have a guy that would rather be riding on a bicycle with kardashians and envisions himself as a success story instead of addressing the fact that the russians in ukraine are celebrating, flying airplanes all over the world and he wants to put more money for the irs

and -- it is ridiculous. i'd like to see your comments, please. >> well, i mean you touched on a couple of different topics. and let me address one of them. that is that the middle east and this part of the world isn't the only concern that we have of these negotiations with iran are really one of the most critical issues facing us now from a national security perspective. but they're not the only issue. and the aggressiveness of russia is another one as you mentioned caller, that we have to deal with, i think, in a real way as well. i think it is an illustration of this, that i've seen and heard again and again. i spent almost three weeks. little more than three weeks last august in the middle east, in egypt jordan morocco, israel, all over the area. and it was as if everyone was talking off of the same briefing points everywhere we went.

they said where is the united states, we need you to lead. we don't know if we can count on you any longer. in fact, i heard that from ambassador just last night in the dinners i shared -- that we shared together. where is the united states? his expression was very clear and i would rather tell you what he said than who it was. he said, we will fail if the united states doesn't lead in this part of the region. we have to have your involvement. and i would say that's true in russia as well. our involvement with russia. this idea of leading from behind, i don't even know what that means. i'm saying that sincerely. how can you lead from behind. i think we leave the world a much darker and much more chaotic place if we're not willing to take our role in the world. i'm not saying we're the world's policemen. as a former air force guy, i understand how difficult this is for military, for military families, how much we have used

them and worn them out. we have a responsibility to lead when we can and i just don't understand this administration has done that. >> the caller is referring to the russian president celebrating. here is the headline on cnn's website, putin at concert in red square celebrates first anniversary of crimea annexation. what needs to be done? >> let's see where failure of leadership hurt us in the current situation. that's very obvious. people made this point. i think that vladimir putin was emboldened when our president said there is a red line in syria and if you cross that line you will be -- you'll be held accountable for that. and they did and they weren't. and our allies and our adversaries notice that. i think actually the stage was set for that earlier in syria when the administration vacillated so much in their response to that. we're doing to do this we're