[roll call] >> 10 yeas and 12 nays. the amendment is not agreed to. >> my amendment would and --

ensure they would not accept a pay raise during the fiscal cliff. there was a pay freeze extended for this fiscal year to 2013. this would extend it through the budget window. as i mentioned earlier, there is a typo in it. those technical corrections will be made. my point with this amendment -- amendment is we will be running deficits throughout the decade no matter what budget is accepted throughout the committee. if you look at the house budget, it does not balance until we get to the end of the decade. during that, we should not be taking a pay raise. >> without objection, a vote. all those in favor, say aye. n. ay. -- -- opposed, nay.

approved. i have a terrible time with the change my husband racks around in his pockets. i cannot imagine more of it. [laughter] >> in light of your fervent opposition -- [laughter] i would withdraw my amendment because i think i would have a better chance with the banking committee. >> without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. that moves us to senator portman. >> are we on medical malpractice? this state's $62 billion on the congressional budget office report. madame chair, i would encourage a vote on this. i think it might give us the opportunity to work on something if it goes to the floor if we were to have a vote

today. >> i oppose this amendment. if there is no objection, say aye. opposed, nay. it is not agreed to. you have another amendment. >> recall earlier there was an amendment regarding our federal training program. i would ask to rid drop -- withdraw that amendment and the offer an amendment intended to improve access, enhance outcomes, with job training and reemployment programs. this is something i believe i worked out with you and your staff. >> there is some confusion on this. you are offering the modified amendment. >> that is correct. offer -- with off -- with

drawing the previous amendment. >> of the amendment is agreed to. this is the final amendment, the final vote. it is yours. >> we are a nation of immigrants. we are built that way. our law calls for allowing immigrants to come who are able to sustain themselves and not the a public charge. we have instances now of the promotion of the program in foreign consulates. i think that is unnecessary. we promote the snap program in foreign embassies. >> i oppose this amendment strongly.

outreach efforts are important. the senator made excellent points during the debate on this. this could lead to qualified individuals going hungry in a time people in our history are experiencing real poverty. i oppose the amendment. do you want a roll-call vote on this amendment? [roll call]

the amendment is not agreed to. committee members are moving to the final vote. unanimous consent i want to make. before that, i want to thank all of the members of the committee. we have a very spirited and respectful debate today. showed us the path forward that we feel strongly about this country and are willing to work from our different perspectives to reach the common goal by not going from crisis to crisis. we are hoping to continue to move this forward next week and continue on the process. i appreciate everyone listening to each other and learning. before we go to final passage, i ask unanimous consent that

staff incorporate the numbers contained in the chairman's mark and ask consent that staff be permitted to make technical achanges. >> unless anybody opposes, i think that would be the right choice. >> the deadline for the committee to file additional views no later than friday, march 15. no objections? finally, i move the -- we asked for the clerk to call role. [role call]

10 nays and 12 yeas. all our committee members, i think we showed we can respect each other despite our differences of views. i hope that allows us to work together in the coming weeks and months to solve these important problems. i especially want to thank all of our staff who have done a tremendous work in a short amount of time. i was named chairman of this committee a few months ago.

we were able to work with members to move this favorably. i know that has robbed you a little bit. you work with us. i appreciate all our members and especially our staff, and we will all work hard next week to get this out. a lot more debate to come. we have shown the american people we can make progress when we put our minds to it. i appreciate everyone's involvement. >> thank you. you have allowed us to have free ability to speak out. if members had something to offer, you allow us to do that. you have been respectful of the process today. we appreciate that. we believe this budget does not meet the challenge of the time. it does not put us on a path that increases spending next year over the current in spat -- expected rates. it increases spending over the

decade and does not reduce the debt in any significant way. we do not think it meets the challenge necessary. we did it in an open process. everybody had the ability to offer amendments. we believe that is better. we think it has highlighted the key issues. we will have a good week next week. everybody will have an opportunity to offer amendments. maybe somewhere as we go along and everybody has had their say and we have had a lot of votes come there might be a court been reached on another of and ported issues. i hope so. thank you for your leadership. >> this committee is adjourned. >> well done.

you are a good chair. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> the senate budget committee and two days of debate on a vote, 12-10, sending the budget to the full senate, which could start debate on it next week after the chamber finishes work on spending the rest of this fiscal year.

president obama was back on capitol hill today with a third meeting and lawmakers. this afternoon, the president met with senate republicans and house democrats. we will learn that -- more about that next. the democratic-led senate panel approved a measure to approve an assault weapons ban similar to one that expired in 2004. they would also limit high capacity ammunition clips to 10 bullets. that is coming up later. >> i think what dolley madison does is a model for governance that stresses stability and emphases -- empathy. she is modelling of this for us.

she will not win. we look to our founding generations because we need examples. we need more models. her way of conducting politics stresses building bridges and not bonkers, and it is a modern -- model we have used in the future. >> now available on our web site, c-span.org/firstladies >> this is 15 minutes.

>> good afternoon. we spend most of the time on "q&a. -- q and a. a considerable portion of the time was vote -- was on our deficit and debt. i thought it would be a good idea for some of our freshmen members to give you their perspective of the meeting. then we will be happy to take any questions you may have. >> thank you. i was pleased the president joined the republicans for lunch today. we had a good first step here. it is just a first step. any time you have a conversation like this, it is needed. if we are going to see any kind of progress, we will need this

rigid consistent and committed and real leadership i was sent to washington to cut spending. that happens when you follow a legislative process. i am new year. i know we need to follow regular order. that has not been happening. i do not support back room deals. i do not support kickbacks. i believe in a legislative process. that is the background i come from. i appreciate senator mcconnell's leadership he has shown when he is committed to supporting in any discussion and throughout this process. i look forward to working with my colleagues. i look forward to continuing to work with the president as we move forward to reduce the

deficit, as we move forward to balance a budget. that is my priority. i can tell you that is the priority for the people of nebraska, as well. thank you. >> we enjoyed a good meeting. it was the first time the president has come to do some diplomacy. during his first term, he invited us to play basketball on the white house lawn. we won and we were never invited back. [laughter] no, it was a good experience. this was a good meeting. we raised several issues appeared i think the president for the role he is planning on immigration. behind-the-scenes role that is constructive and helpful. and i raise another issue we have in arizona with the regulatory process. here in the senate and house, we

have not gone through regular order for four years. as a consequence, the parameters we set for the federal agencies when you do appropriation bills or attached report language to put some guard rails on what they regulate and what they do not, has been missing. that is showing in many ways in arizona. we have a generating station in northern arizona that has been put forward that is -- an order that is pretty expensive. it would have a layoff of 900 people. it would wreak havoc on the budget, as well. really, around the state, economic devastation in many ways. this is an area where we need to work with the president on and agencies to make sure there is a cost-benefit analysis that is done with these regulations.

the president had earlier talked about such an analysis. i thought it was encouraging and i applaud the president for coming up here. >> i think and hope today was a productive conversation. we need far more dialogue in washington and we need far more willingness four republicans and democrats to work hand in hand to address the fiscal and economic challenges facing this country occurred i welcome the president coming to capitol hill to meet with us. i had the opportunity to ask the president a question. i asked him if he agreed that the number one priority of every elected official, republican and democrat, should be restoring economic growth so the many people who are struggling and hurting out of work across the country could go back to work. he said he did agree that growth should be our top priority.

i asked specifically, are there areas where we can work together in a bipartisan way to restore economic growth. i specified fundamental tax reform that does not raise revenues but reduces the burdens of our tax code on small businesses and individuals. and regulatory reforms that likewise reduce the ongoing burdens on small businesses, job creation, and those struggling to achieve the economic train. i was encouraged by his answer to both questions. on tax reform in particular, the president ported -- pointed to corporate tax reform. he said he believed there was a lot of agreement between republicans and democrats on corporate tax reform, on broadening the base and lowering the rates so we can be internationally competitive and remaining revenue neutral. all of that was encouraging. those were principles that have

wide agreement. if we lower our rates, our country has the highest of any developed country in the world. over a trillion dollars -- over $1 trillion of capital is overseas. we need to bring that back so we can get back to work appeared i was encouraged but his expression of willingness to get that done. on the second issue, on reducing the burden of regulations, job creation, economic growth, he likewise expressed a willingness to work together with republicans to focus on a cost- benefit analysis, to target existing regulations that impose substantially greater costs than they benefit, and he suggested the creation of a task force in the senate to take a look at regulatory burdens and to come up with a proposal for specific regulatory burdens that could be alleviated to improve economic

growth and job creation. i very much welcome that suggestion. i look forward to doing everything i can to work productively, for us to roll up our sleeves and get the economy working again, get the millions of people who are struggling to find jobs back to work again. and i am hopeful this conversation today was a positive step in that direction. >> any questions? >> a lot of this conversation has been focused on entitlement reform. i am wondering if you heard anything in there that the president said about a willingness to bring down the cost of entitlements. >> the president has says paul -- has said publicly and reiterated privately he understands that until -- let me put it the way i like to put it. until you make the eligibility for entitlements, you can never solve the problem. until you solve the entitlement

concerned, in a way that saves medicare and saves social security and medicaid, because the trusties he appointed are all in trouble, you also cannot save health care, you cannot save the country until you fix this problem. i think the president understands that. his political base is pretty wedded to trying to get additional revenue as a condition of solving the problem. there in lies a troubled scenario for us. we look back at the fiscal cliff. the law expired. the view i think every republican in the house and senate is, he got his revenue. that is a sticking point. he understands that and we do. that does not mean we should not

be discussing this. it will bring about another discussion about what we should do about debt. >> tax reform. [indiscernible] what does this do? >> the senator pointed out on a corporate side, it sounds like we are in agreement. he thought it would be revenue neutral. >> [indiscernible] >> my impression was he thought the corporate rate needed to come down and it would be revenue neutral. a more sticky point would be if he tried to use the personal rates, the non corporate rates, as a way to generate additional revenue. i thought what he had to say on the corporate side is pretty good. i do not see how you could do

corporate tax reform only. we have too many escorts all across america. it is numerically the greatest number of american businesses do not pay taxes and corporations. you do not want to have an adverse affect on american small business. i am skeptical you can do corporate all by itself and not to comprehensive. any of you want to elaborate? >> i would agree. i think it is necessary we have a comprehensive tax reform. i was encouraged to hear the president speak about lowering the corporate tax rate. everyone knows we are the highest in the world. if we are going to be competitive and grow jobs in this country, we need to see that lower. he mentioned it needed to be revenue neutral. if you are going to look at lowering the corporate tax rate, you are talking about

comprehensive tax reform there. i hope that is the direction we could go. >> does that indicate he would stand up on his own party? >> he likes to speak for himself. let me give you my take. we need two things from him. he needs to be directly involved, not leading from behind, but directly involved. and his job is to deliver to the members of his party. i have a pretty good sense of where most of my members are. i believe the speaker does, as well. but the president needs to deliver his side. if you are looking for an example of how this can work, the best example in recent times was ronald reagan and tip o'neill raising the age for social security. president reagan delivered the republicans and to all neal delivered the democrats and it saved social security for a generation.

a divided government is a perfect time to do hard things. you could argue it could be the only time you can do hard things. i will give you four examples. the second was tip o'neill. bill clinton and the republican congress doing welfare reform, and actually balancing the budget in the late 1990's. all of that was done at a time of divided government. we will have a unified republican government, but there are uniquely difficult things that one could argue could only be done in a time of divided government. and that is what we have. you cannot do it without presidential leadership. we are all hopeful he will be prepared to provide that kind of leadership. the other thing one of our members pointed out, entitlement adjustments are so difficult to explain to the public, only one person in the government really has a big enough pulpit to

explain that. as one of our members said, americans feel correctly that they have paid into social security and medicare and it is their money they paid into it. not many americans know, in the case of medicare, that they paid in about one-third of what they will get back. only the president can explain that to the nation. he has got an indispensable role. he hopes -- we hope he will decide to stacked -- step up. >> did you get a sense he got that and was willing to step up? >> i felt it was a very good meeting. he was very candid. he understands you cannot fix the country without adjusting entitlements. it is the demographics of our country. we will see where we go from here. it was a great meeting. thank you a lot. [applause] >> now we will hear from house

democrats after their meeting with the president. nancy pelosi takes questions from reporters. [indiscernible] >> you are ready? >> all right. >> why do we not go ahead and start? i am the chairman of the democratic caucus. we heard from a very optimistic man. the president walked in and had just finished lunch with senate republicans and my sense was the man who is confident that if people can put aside some of the extreme parts of the

partisanship we often see, we can get things done. he is optimistic about what the economy is doing now, the jobs that are being created, the pent up demand we are now beginning to see played out as new hires throughout the century, the recovering housing market. you name it. the economy is giving us signs it wants to launch and the president wants to be there to make sure the 535 elected members of congress and the individual american people a elected to be president of united states are ready to launch with the economy. his message to the members of the house of democratic congress work, be ready, let's work hard, let's get this done, and let's do it in a way that we bring americans to the table to vote, not republicans and not democrats, but americans, to

improve the lives of americans. we turn to our house democratic leader, nancy pelosi. >> thank you very much. thank you for a very important meeting with the president of united states and our caucus this afternoon. the president came as an optimistic leader of a great nation. he talked about the window that has to exist between elections. we are here to get the job done for the american people. he talked about the middle class who we are here to work for to get the job done. with some optimism that, although we have our disagreements, and that is what the democratic process is about, people with differing views coming together to reach solutions in this window of time that we should take advantage of it to benefit the american people.

it was an interesting set of questions ranging from climate change to taxation to stopping the cuts in environmental search, the health of our nation. the president was again inspiring, optimistic, realistic, and called upon us for unity and invited any thoughts we had ongoing 4. being unified does not necessarily mean having no questions about each other's positions. being a likely democratic caucus, we had the questions and the unity and we appreciated the optimism of the president. i am pleased to yield to our distinguished house democratic whip. >> the president was optimistic and positive. he was pleased with the meetings he has had.

both with the house republicans and senate democrats and the house democrat. the president indicated that the election is over. we had a vigorous debate. the american people have made a choice. we have a democratic president, a democratic senate, and a republican house. he observed and i agree that the sequester that has been adopted should not go forth, should not stay in place. we ought to do that in a more rational, a balanced way, that we need to move forward in setting our country on an even more successful path than we are on. good job numbers last month, the stock market had historic highs, but in order to continue that and grow more jobs, the president made it clear he understands he needs to reach

out to republicans and to work with his democratic colleagues in the house and senate to make sure we reach a balanced resolution, a resolution to move this country forward. if we do so, he is very optimistic about the fact that we will do very well as a country, create the kinds of jobs we need, and be competitive to grow our economy. has been a very positive meeting. all our members were priest -- pleased the president has joined us. he is positive about the meetings and is happy with our republican colleagues and looks forward to working with them. i would like to yield to the assistant leader from south carolina. >> thank you very much. i agree the president was very optimistic. he was standing before a caucus of very optimistic members. if there is anything i have

heard beyond what i thought was very positive, there was a little bit of concern from our members as to whether or not we would jeopardize the investments in our children and in the security of families going forward. that is to include whether or not we will find ourselves postponing. i think the president used two years of the kind of investments and research we need to make. in order for us to ensure we stay competitive with nations where research is such a big part of what they are doing. i would hope that as we continue our discussions that boast -- both sides keep in mind we ought not do anything that would jeopardize staying competitive in our children. having the kinds of

opportunities they should have in a country as great as this. i yield to our vice chair. >> thank you. if you have not heard yet, the president was very optimistic and very positive. [laughter] i am sure we will reiterates that. the point that struck me was the president talked about the need to accomplish things. he does not have an election is his future. you have to have some. in time where we come together and do the work of the american people and stop going from fiscal crisis to fiscal crisis. that is something we have been saying for some time now. it needs to come to an end.

the president was very positive. now i give you congressman stevenson. >> he was very optimistic. was an optimistic caucus. the president was optimistic, but also, the president was lively. our caucus was lightly. lively in the discussion about how we continue to support and expand and grow america's middle-class and working families. we will make one final point and i will tell you how optimistic things work, the president has shown that he is willing to meet the republicans more than halfway by coming to capitol hill and shuttling back and forth to meet with republicans in the house and the senate. we will continue to try to find common ground and common sense with republicans based on the principles the president himself enumerated. we have got to take a balanced

approach in our budgets, we have got to reduce debt, and we have got to continue to make smart investments in the growth of america's middle-class. we are going to see if we can get things done with republicans and the president. if the president said, for the generational challenges, there has got to be at least one special interest tap -- tax loophole they are willing to consider. we look forward to hearing them making some recommendations on where we can achieve that kind of balance. thank you very much. >> questions? >> you are the chairman, so it is your job to elect democrats. the president is committed to you to help elect democrats. did he explain how he would reconcile those two things between trying to work out a deal with republicans in order

to win house seats? >> it should not be earth shattering to anybody that the president of united states would prefer to work with members of his party who would not block him and slammed the door on any compromise and negotiation. there is nothing new there. the president also said to us there is a time for politics and there is a time for governing. this is a time for us to get things done. i respect that and i understand it. i will be part of that. >> he can walk and chew gum, as well. >> republicans say the president expressed a willingness to make big changes to medicare if that is what it takes to get a grand bargain. will democrats stand behind him on that? >> i am not sure of the characterization. i will say what we have done so far, it has been very positive. the affordable care act, we

already found over $700 billion in savings put back into medicare to increase benefits for the beneficiaries. to extend the life of medicare by almost a decade, by closing the whole, -- hole, and providing free checkups for seniors. they are enjoying those increased benefits now. we also had the affordable care at the initiative to look at the regional disparities which cost us money in terms of high reimbursement for low performance. it is about quality and not quantity of services and that report is coming out and that is the place where more money will be saved. we have already gone down that path when you see the increase in medicare spending has gone up only 0.4%. that is a slowing of the rate of increase and medicaid is completely even.

with the regional disparities addressed, the curve will bend further as far as lowering costs. that is one of the basic premises of the ryan budget. it is not a real balanced but he is aided in his attempts to do that by the fact that the cbo has been given the baseline on the basis of lowering anticipated medicare costs. we agree with the president we can make savings in prescription drugs, $140 billion worth that have been in the president's budget and that we support. already, we have taken it on a path to improve benefits for those who benefit from medicare and medicaid. we have sustained the life of medicare for a longer period of time. we have found considerable said -- where considerable savings can be made.

we are talking about how we can find other ways to save, whether it be someone like me to pay more for a copiague or a deductible, but we have to be careful because most of the beneficiaries on medicare make $40,000 or below. others of us can afford to pay more. medicare is already tested in certain aspects of it. i think there is room for more. drastic cuts, $140 billion in pharmaceuticals. some of the site -- findings in the affordable care at called for would lower the number as well. democrats were the authors of medicare and the protectors of medicare. we want it to be sustained and be there for a long time. we recognize the demographics of many more people, baby boomers, who have come on and continue to come on the system.

we are there to make sure it is strong. republicans have said they are there to see it wither on the vine and their approach is to end the medicare guarantee in 10 years for future seniors. >> that sends a message to the president today, do not go too far when it comes to social security and medicare? >> one of the subject that came up was the question of a cpi that we talked about this is morning. as i said, but was not reported accurately, was that if there can be a demonstration the cpi does not hurt the poor or the very old, then it is something to put on the table, as you put on the table other things that might sustain social security for a longer period of time, recognizing the demographic shift that is taking place. we have a responsibility to all

of the american people. invest in our children. they are the hope for our future. we want to keep our promises to our seniors and their families and those who depend on medicare and social security. again, unless, and the president is very clear about this and you might want to integrate it into your questions, no revenue and no -- no revenue, no change in the sentiment. >> [indiscernible] how do you see this process play out over the next few months? >> the president has facilitated further discussion. he has had republican senators for dinner. he will have other republicans and democrats down to the white house and in other venues, he has come up here, coming more than halfway.

you said that. >> i said he was optimistic. >> you were the optimistic guy. somebody said it. where do we go from here? democracy is an ongoing, day-to- day, week to week, month to month process. if we are going to work towards a solution to the problems, it will have to be done in a bipartisan way. if not, we have seen it will not get done. we have done bipartisan efforts. violence against women. the bill passed. the next steps, the way we go, is to continue discussions. i intend to continue discussions with republicans as the leader continues to have discussions with mr. boehner. that is the way we will proceed. we are optimistic that we can

get to a place because everyone that i talked to, republican, democrat, conservative, or liberal, things we need to get to a different place than we are now. [indiscernible] john >> what was the president's message on climate change? >> it was more than a statement -- more of a statement than a question. the recognition was that the president mentioned it very strongly in his state of the union address and he was adding his beliefs to say this was an important issue and we should address it strongly. >> republican said earlier today the president was willing to go along with a lower

corporate tax rate that would be revenue neutral. is that a position you would go along with? he further said he was open to the possibility of a corporate tax rate reform that would leave out individuals, otherwise, -- individuals. >> we all want to address that question. the point here is that when we asked the republican leadership if there was any wasteful special interest loophole they could close in order to reduce the deficit, they said no. they would close some wasteful special-interest loopholes only to lower the rates. but we are not opposed to lowering the rates if we can get more people to pay taxes and close loopholes. that is a question about how we simplify and make our tax system more fair. we do not disagree with the

president that can be done to lower rates, ok. but not abandoning the obligation to lower the deficit, as well. that is really important. we need revenue. we cannot walk away from that source. it is a big source. the other part of it is we want to be competitive in the global economy and that is a consideration the president put forth. i want to yield to our distinguished chairman. >> the republicans were for closing loopholes for purposes of reducing the deficit before they were against it. they said they could find $800 billion during the discussions of the fiscal cliff. i think the republicans were

correct then. this position they are taking now runs totally contrary to what they said before. i hope they do not walk away again from that proposal because it could help us truly reach a landmark deal that lets us see the economy grow, americans get back to work in bigger numbers, and then we could do all of the other things that are so important, whether it is health care, getting climate change under control, everything americans believe their leadership's -- their leaders should do. >> i would add very quickly that the president did make reference to the fact that the rate as it exists right now for corporates at a disadvantage.

25% across-the-board limit for both personal and corporate taxes. the dishonesty of that budget. they never tell you exactly how they will pay for it. you would have to eliminate every possible expenditure, including the home interest mortgage reduction, a very popular expenditure amongst many americans. there are -- they ought to be more honest about how they would approach a tax reform. they have not been so far. [indiscernible] >> i am curious to hear what you think the president meant when he said he has run his last election. one way of hearing that is he will not be as aggressive in campaigning for you guys. >> no. what it meant to me is the fact that he will not go back into

history and be a president to run for a lower office again or senate or something else. he has made it very clear that he has found himself doing this job, studying very closely the history of our great country. that is what he meant. he was reflecting on presidents past having done that. he would not do that. i think steve is correct. the president is a democrat. democrats will be running in 200014. -- 2014. i think the president will be in support of democrats. >> i understand what jim said. i think what the president meant by that was i will not do things for political reasons, but because it is in the best

interest of our country and our people. i think that is absolutely what he meant. i do not think we can accuse him of trying to do something of -- for political reasons to do something. >> i do not think he has ever done anything for political reasons. [laughter] i think the point of his making that point was he did not want other people to attribute any political motivation to what he was doing. but i think this has been a president who has been bipartisan as any i have seen. when he was talking about the tumble of politics in washington d.c. overtime and his reading of history as a president, seeing it through those eyes, that has always been, we have differences of opinions and it takes different manifestations of that enthusiasm over time. i was thinking of one speaker of

the house who became president of the united states, president polk. when he was the speaker of the house, he said, this place is so out of order, i am not recognizing anybody. no matter how far back in time you go, you will see the enthusiasm of it sometimes manifesting itself in a way that might not -- may not pass in somebody's living room when you see it on live tv, but is part of our enthusiasm and history. >> he was very clear. he made the point we had elections four months ago, the politics are behind the president and us. the american people want us to get things done. he is committed to getting that done. my friends in the republican caucus have tried to take some umbrage about who the president called on election night and when. the american people do not care who the president called and when.

they care about what the republicans call for in their budgets. that is what counts. that is what the president wants to focus on. >> my interpretation was the president cannot run again. he is very optimistic about the future. [laughter] also that the election took place. have the whole politics -- the whole politics was about removing him from office. now is the time to move forward before the next election and before the presidential election to accomplish big things for the american people. that is what the president was talking about. >> michelle obama. >> she is optimistic. >> on our next "washington journal," damian paletta.

later, a discussion on drug abuse and mental health issues with peter delany. and a chief medical officer for the department of mental health for washington d.c. each morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> the public is not paying as much attention as i am and you are and those of us who are part of this political community. there is the political community, which is about 10 million people. it is the people who watch c- span and they watched "meet the press" and fox news and msn d.c. -- msnbc. they care about politics allot. most people think a lot of what

goes on in politics in washington and journalism is background noise. the background noise comes pretty much from the mainstream media. people forming an opinion of romney and obama and so on. fox news does not reach most of those people. it gets great ratings. has a loyal audience. but look at the shows. the bill o'reilly show is the most popular on cable news. it gets 3 million people a night. that is not the electorate. we have a big country. the conservative media only reaches a tiny chunk of it. >> more sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's "q&a." >> the senate judiciary

committee approved a ban on assault weapons. the proposal bands 157 different models of assault weapons and magazines containing more than 10 bullets. the measure now goes to the full senate. >> people on their way here, [indiscernible] others are on their way. we will have the appropriations bill on the floor. last week, we had a bipartisan vote for illegal trafficking and firearms. we had another bipartisan vote

for the safety and nachman act. -- enactment act. we have three of the four. they are required to enhance the safety of our children in schools and close loopholes in the background check system. complete actions to the senator feinstein's proposal, please limitations on high capacity ammunition magazines, and i think everybody has given as many statements as they want to give. i will yield to the senator and then we will go right to the -- the senior senator of california

and the senator from texas. >> i will not speak any more on the legislation before us unless senator feinstein forgot what i said. >> none asat -- none of us have. >> thank you. as long as i have the floor, i will say what we normally say about what is on the agenda. we have two nominees on the agenda. we have a request on our side to hold them over. i will not have to repeat that when you take that business up. in regard to the rest of the markup, just one sentence. maybe i will say a procedural thing. i know we have amendments on our side and even though i do not have anything to say on the bill further, i hope we respect everybody's right to offer amendments, whoever on our side wants to do that.

the only thing i want to say as i am still -- is i am still we have had two hearings, we have still not seen an announcement -- an analysis. that is all i had to say. >> [indiscernible] senator schumer. >> senator grassley has asked me to look into the matter.

i have reviewed it and emperor. to move forward. -- and amber appeared to move forward. -- am prepared to move forward. >> i feel that they understand what we are trying to get answers to. i think i have satisfied them for a while. i do not think it will take very long. >> i know you have talked to them, and i appreciate that. they told me that you did. senator corning, you added an amendment? >> senator leahy has a statement i would like to put on the

record. >> the record is open for any statements. senator? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i know senator feinstein has fought for this legislation with passion about her belief and the need for this legislation. i respect her conviction, although i strongly oppose the bill. as i said last week, gun violence is a tragic problem in the united states. it is our responsibility to address the problem on behalf of the american. we can do that with raw bipartisan support if they're willing to address the serious deficiencies in the mental health system and improve the background database and do a better job in executive branch of enforcing existing laws.

i'm encouraged that there were others on the committee who support legislation to patch the holes in the background check system. thatopeful the legislation senator schumer introduced, i hope we can continue to work on that i'm improving from my perspective. we simply need to patch the holes in the background system that enabled the mentally ill to buy guns. that is the type of legislation that i think would have the greatest positive impact on gun violence in america. and state-of-the-art considering a piece of legislation that jeopardizes the self-defense rights of law- abiding citizens. while doing nothing to address the real problems. efforts to enact -- a real concern that this is distracting

congress from solutions to stop the mentally deranged from buying guns. i cannot support this. i had led some serious concerns i have with senator feinstein's legislation -- i highlighted some serious concerns i have with senator feinstein's legislation. the bill focuses on cosmetic features are certain firearms rather than mental illness and guns. the bill does nothing to deal with the lack of effective enforcement of current gun laws. people lie on background checks. there is a missing zero chance of getting prosecuted by the department of justice. i believe the bill would infringe upon the ability of law writing the citizens to defend themselves and their families. let me just add -- >> d have an amendment?

-- do you have an amendment? >> i do. prohibited the use of ammunition clips, we should think long and hard for going down this road. last week the's markup make clear that the effectiveness of legislation would prevent military veterans from how best to defend families in their communities. in order to demonstrate what i believe to be the weaknesses and indeed you might say absurdities of this legislation, i offered an amendment that might have existed -- exempted these veterans, but it was rejected by this committee. nine of our members on the other side chose to block that amendment. i think that was a mistake. this will be revisited on the floor. what i would like to do is to

117 and my amendment 13 ask for immediate consideration. >> [inaudible] >> mic, please. >> that is correct. >> i must admit i look at these issues. [inaudible] >> the chairman knows the reason i did not vote for that version

for the violence against women act. it contained an unconstitutional provision regarding tribal courts. i was proud to support many elements of that bill, by could not support an unconstitutional provision. this amendment would allow the use of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stocking to obtain such defense weapons prohibited by this legislation. i asked to enter into the record a letter and received for the congressional women's rights caucus. >> no objection. do you wish to speak on the amendment? >> it is supported by the concerned women for america in the eagle forum among others. violence against women act victims are often the target of repeat offenders and of devastating cycle of violence.

several weeks ago, a woman explained to the committee that guns are a great equalizer for women trying to protect themselves from aggressors. are thed that ar-15's weapon of choice for many women due to the accuracy and easy handling and lightweight. it is also important that this legislation would effectively ban millions of handguns by outlawing the ammunition magazines that are designed to accept it. the handgun is the most common and effective self-defense weapon used by women in the united states. this legislation would have a tragic impact on female crime victims. for those reasons, i urge the amendments consideration of passage. >> thank you. senator feinstein? >> i oppose this amendment. i hope we will vote no on it. we have look for instances of

self-defense. we have not found any. we have asked individuals. no one has presented me with any evidence that a person fares better in self-defense with an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine that with a standard handgun. if the senator has any evidence, i hope you will present it. that is evidence where an assault weapon has been used for self-defense by people who have been victims of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, or stalking. the witnesses at the last hearing testified, but no one needs an assault weapon are large capacity magazine for self-defense. chief flynn a milwaukee testified. innocent law-abiding citizens using these types of weapons is disproved.

another quote, the idea that these weapons are used for self- defense is based on our experience completely absurd. the u.s. attorney general for colorado, i can rent is sufficient to subdue a criminal a potential assailant. -- is sufficient to subdue a criminal for a potential assailant. i urge no boat. >> if i may respond -- no i urgo vote. >> if i may respond? i refer her to a woman who testified before the committee that this gun is a great equalizer, including the use of an ar-15. his testimony before the committee that should be considered. the vice president believes that

a handgun is insufficient for some defense because that the giddy use of a shotgun on at least one occasion -- because he has advocated the use of a shotgun on at least one occasion. there is a listing of nine separate incidents of people defending themselves with assault weapons that be prohibited by this legislation. >> it is on the record. >> very quickly, i would like to include on the record a chicago tribune story a police officer shot to death a 58-year-old man who refused to drop an automatic assault weapon, which he pulled on policeman. it is a weapon that police often carry, but now face from criminals on the street. >> mr. chairman, the underlying

bill exempts retired police officers. the rationale for that, which i support, is that they can use their weapons for self-defense. why did we deny other american citizens the right to legitimately use these weapons for self-defense escapes me. >> there is a larger issue here that we need to think about. what the sender is trying to do is protect the constitutional rights -- what the senator is trying to do is protect constitutional rights. the burden onto be on the people who are trying to limit constitutional rights. >> clerk, call role. [calling role] >> no. >>xy. >> no by proxy. >> no. >> no by proxy. >>.

>> no. >> aye. >> aye by proxy. >> aye by proxy. >> aye. >> zye by proxy. -- aye by proxy. 8 yea and 10 nay. >> you have the floor. >> i recall amendment and ask for its immediate consideration. >> no objection. this amendment would allow persons to obtain the protection order that is actually a broader definition than merely a protective order that is ordinarily thought of. this would allow people to

obtain protection orders as defined by the violence against women act to obtain the defense weapons prohibited by this legislation. the national coalition against a mastic violence estimates that 1.3 million women up, ties by domestic violence. one in every four well experienced domestic violence in her lifetime. when sexual assaults are added, the numbers are staggering. the most vulnerable of these women is a living symbol of their struggle and the real threat of danger they and their families must live with every day. we should ensure that these law- abiding americans are able to own and possess the very tools necessary to protect themselves from becoming as tragic statistic. i asked my colleagues to support this amendment which would allow individuals to obtain and possess the self-defense weapons

prohibited at this legislation. >> i would urge a no vote again. in my view, there is no strong evidence that these weapons are used for self-defense, nor do i believe you need clips are ammunitions of more than 10 bullets for self-defense. when senator biden said that if you really want a weapon, use a 12 gauge shotgun. shotgun is not an assault weapon. these assault weapons have different slides put in them. it makes them act like fully automatic weapons. these weapons are generally able to be spray fired. what is happening here and we will see more of these amendments is an effort to nip an d tuck and create exception after exception. i resist this effort to stop i urge a no nvote.

>> clerk call role. >> no. >>n no. >> no by proxy. >> no by proxy. >> no by proxy. >> no. >> aye. >> aye aye proxy. >> aye by proxy. >> aye. >> aye by proxy. aye >>no. 8 yea, 10 nay. >> i was thinking of what firepower people needed in their homes. when discussions sounded almost like someone saw the movies of

zombie takeovers. i have always been satisfied with my 405i have at home. we have people escaping from prison and announcing they're going to kill me, i felt pretty comfortable with that. i guess it depends on how good of a shot a person is. go ahead. we certainly will not ask you to inventory your arsenal that you maintain that your home. >> [indiscernible] >> in response to what you said , it seems to me you're raising

the question about the firepower that a person ought to have to protect their home isn. is it the rule ought to be -- i whatthe rule ought to be aggressors might have? >> if i may ask before going to my next amendment, i asked the senator from california, what is the purpose for the exception for retired police officers in the bill? >> the reason for retired police officers is that generally they do maintain their weapons and keep her weapons. the retired police feel strongly about this. this is a problem for them if you are going remove weapons from them. in the crafting of the bill, we made certain compromises and changes. that was one that we made. >> mr. chairman, i call up my amendment 13118.

>> without objection, that is before the committee. >> this amendment would allow residents of counties that are on the southwestern border to obtain and possess weapons prohibited by this legislation. our border to the south transnational criminal organizations are equipped with fully automatic military style weapons and trained in military tactics. they are committing hundreds of thousands of acts of violence every year. these organizations have expanded their footprint to the united states through drug trafficking and human trafficking. these cartels are dangerous, as are the things that support their operations. -- gangs that support

operations. i cannot in good conscience tell my constituents that the federal government is going to deny them the freedom to defend their families of these transnational criminal organizations. i asked my colleagues to support the amendment. >> if i may respond? >> you may. >> this is another way to create a nip and tuck. i would like to point out that the bill contains nearly 100 pages of weapons by make and model that are exempted. there are plenty of weapons out there. the whole point of this bill is to reduce over time the supply, possession, transfer, and sale of military style weapons. anyone who has a concern that their weapon is affected need only look at the bill and you

will see most likely your weapon is exempted by name, make, and model. that is everything from handguns to rifles and on and on. i would like to make that point. i urge a no vote. >> can i speak? >> yes. >> i support the amendment. i think we need to remind everyone when it comes to the citizens of any place in the united states, in the case of immigration, it is clear that is the responsibility of the federal government to protect our borders and secure the borders. in the southwest of the united states, we have people being murdered. that is a reason for his

amendment. the federal government is not doing their job. these folks are getting across the border. the federal government is not protecting the people. under the 10th amendment, the states rights or state responsibility of protecting the safety and welfare of their citizens step in to do it. you know what? the federal government starts suing the state of arizona, but the federal government is doing its job, arizona would not have to step in and spend all this money. the senator comes up with his amendment. if the federal government will not do it, will be allowed the citizens to do it? if the government doesn't do it , the second amendment is a right to self protection. a spec that write and give the people the power to do it when the state government is

not doing it. the state government would not have to do it it the -- the state government would not have to do it if the federal government was doing its job. they should say, we will work with you to protect her citizens. >> mr. chairman? >> senator blumenthal. >> if i may respond to the general line of argument that i think is raised by these amendments would give a self- defense argument. i respect the desire to provide defense for the means for self- defense for victims of domestic violence and to victims of assault. i think we all do. what time of weapons are necessary or best suited for that defense? obviously the second amendment guarantees every individual regardless of whether he or she is a victim of any crime.

decision makes that clear. the only question is what kind of weapon provides the best or safest means of self-defense? i think that testimony before this committee was clear that the use of these assault weapons is primarily for her little purposes. it is an offensive weapon. it is a military style weapon that was designed and made for our military to kill people and it may be used to kill people for self-defense. self-defense is best done by other kinds of weapons which are commonly used at close range. one of the witnesses said the majority of shootings and self- defense occur at close range. a 10-round magazine is sufficient to subdue a criminal or potential assailant. chief flynn said much the same

thing that these assault weapons are commonly used by criminals, often against police and not by people in self-defense. i think it is the nature of the weapon that gives issue. assault weapons, because they are so extraordinarily damaging because multiple wounds, serious wounds, are simply appropriate to be banned with a well- defined and explicit approach that this proposal takes. i think these amendments may be well-intentioned and agree with their purpose in providing self- defense to victims of these horrendous crimes, it can be done better by other types of

weapons. >> i was just about to respond to my friend and say, why would we want to make an otherwise law-abiding citizen into a criminal if they want to use these weapons to defend themselves and their families? this that as thee effect legislation. i also believe if the criminals that you allude to -- you know this area as much as anyone -- if the criminals use weapons like this, why would you deny for defensive purposes for law- abiding citizens to use an equivalent firepower to defend themselves? it is not much satisfaction to say that criminals are going to have access to the whole range of weapons that they will have access to because they do not care about the laws that are passed. and we will give the american citizens a pea shooter to

defend themselves? i think that is inadequate. >> mr. chairman? >> senator cruz. >> if i might pose a question to the senator from california, in your response to senator cornyn , you mentioned there is some 100 pages of the bill that specifies particular firearms that if this will work past, fungus would have deemed these prohibited. -- congress would have deemed these prohibited. the second amendment in the bill of rights divides the rights or people to bear arms should not be infringed. the term, the right of the people" they use that same phrase in the first amendment, the right of people to assemble. it is also found in the fourth amendment, the right of the

people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. the question that i post to the senior senate from california, is she being consistent with the bill of rights for congress to engage in the same endeavor we are contemplating doing with the second amendment in the context of the first and fourth amendment, namely would she consider a constitutional for congress to specify that the first amendment shall apply only in the following books and not shall apply that congress has deemed outside the bill of rights, and also the fourth amendment against searches and caesars could only apply to certain individuals and not to individuals that congress has deemed outside the protection. >> senator, do you have a question? .> one, i'm not a six greater -- sixth grader.

i have looked at the bodies that have been shot with these weapons. i have seen the bullets. sandy hook youngsters were dismembered. there are other weapons. i'm not a lawyer, but after 20 years, i have been up close and personal to the constitution of stop i have great respect for -- to the constitution. i have great respect for it. the heller decision point out three exceptions, two of which are pertinent here. it is fine you want to lecture me on the constitution. i appreciate that. just know i have been here for a long time. i have passed a number of bills and studied the constitution myself. i'm reasonably well-educated. thank you the lecture. incidentally, this does not prohibit.

many weapons. isn't that enough for the people in the united states? do they need a bazooka? i do not think so. i come from a different place than you do. i respect your views. i ask you to respect my views. >> mr. chairman, i cannot add anything to that. >> mr. chairman, i would ask another question for the senator of california. i didn't think think anyone doubts her sincerity or compassion, but at the same time, i would note that she chose not to answer the question that i asked. in our judgment, would it be consistent with the constitution or congress to specify which books are

permitted and which ones are not? >> the answer is obvious -- no. >> can we keep on the -- i appreciate that we have a discussion on books. let's stick to guns. >> mr. chairman, i appreciate your knowledge meant. i was specify a little bit more. >> it is obvious that there are different tests for different amendments. there are certain kinds of pornographic materials that would not be covered by the first amendment. >> it is the view that congress

should be in the business of specifying particular books or with respect to the fourth amendment, particular individuals who are not covered by the bill of rights? >> congress is in the business of making law. the supreme court interprets the law. they strike down the law of stoc. with respect to unusual weapons and other things, i do not think -- they cover exemptions for salt weapons. -- assault weapons. >> the senator from illinois. >> that is the point. the senator knows having attended law school and professes to have some experience with the constitution, not these rights are absolute. none of them. the heller decision goes to the question of this amendment and tells us when they were asked on the heller decision, a panel

republican appointed judges rejected the second amendment challenge because he sees assault weapons bans and magazine limits. a second amendment challenge. they do not effectively disarm individuals are as essential to affect their ability to defend themselves. i could go on, but i think the of californiacase. >> clerk, all the role. >> no. >> no. >> no by proxy. >> no. >> no by proxy. >> no. >> aye. >> aye by proxy. >> aye by proxy. >> aye. proxy. by r >> aye by proxy.

>> no. and for the record, senator graham is here. [laughter] any further amendments? >> i have one. incidentally, i appreciate the courtesy of the senior senator from texas who has told as well in advance which amendments he will ask and has not taken an undue amount of time. that means a lot to me. lee's go-ahead. -- pelease go ahead. >> the law assumes that certain types of weapons will only be used for offense of purposes. that is wrong. if it were true, the bill itself would not exempt retired law- enforcement officers from the criminalization of the

possession of these weapons. to further point out that fundamental flaw in the legislation, i call it my amendment 13181. i asked for its immediate consideration. >> the amendment is before the committee. >> mr. chairman, not all of america is urban. there are large sections of rural america where government, including law enforcement officers, are not present. this memo would prevent a bill from threatening the safety of law-abiding citizens living in rural areas and communities of our country by exempting them from possession of the self- defense weapons. the violence against women act itself recognizes that citizens

in rural areas and communities deserve special protections under our laws. in my home state of texas and around the nation, rural americans often live far away and the protection of law enforcement officials. this committee should recognize the vast differences between different regions of our country before enacting bans on personal self-defense weapons from washington, d.c. we must ensure that rural americans are able to protect their families before the police arrive too late at the scene of a violent crime. my amendment exempting law- abiding citizens living in rural areas from the criminalization attempted by this legislation by exempting them from coefficient prohibitions for see purposes. i ask my colleagues to support this. >> than kyk you.

>> i urge a no vote. >> she asserts a no vote. this is for a dirt town that has no police force. >> with the guns you have, they do not need the police force. >> clerk, call role. >> no. >> no. >> no by proxy. >> no. >> no by rproxy. >>. >> aye. >> aye by rpoxy. >> aye by proxy. >> aye by proxy. >> aye. >> no. 8 yea, 10 no.

>> i would note that i have other amendments. i do not want to burn any urges unnecessarily. [laughter] at least not right now so close to st. patrick's day. i withhold further amendments from the floor. thank you. >> thank you. he knows my disappointment of not being elected pope. [laughter] i appreciate his courtesy there for stoc. i appreciate the courtesy of all the senators. we have had four cardinals. i appreciate the courtesy of all the senators of both parties in

moving through major uses of legislation. call the role. i have some concerns about aspects of it. this is a matter of such importance. it should be voted on by the whole senate and not just by this committee. i will vote to support her bill as it is before us. clerk, call role. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye by proxy. >> aye. >>aye by proxy. >> no. >> no by proxy. no by proxy. >> no. >> no by proxy. >> no.

>> aue. >> 10 yea, 8 nay. >> i know several senators have asked for time to speak. we have completed the work on the agenda. several senators have asked to speak. here is the chance to. >> mr. chairman? >> other members wanted to speak on this. to make a few comments. i think every member of this committee needs to ask themselves a few questions. i want to thank members that have stood the eighth. it is very much appreciated. the road is uphill. i fully understand it.

a lot of my passion comes from what i have seen on the streets of cities in this country. i really think that every member of this committee needs to ask themselves a few following questions. are we going to stand with that thousands of police and law enforcement officers who do support this bill? are we going to stand with the victims of gun violence? are we going to stand with the overwhelming number of people? they want this bill passed. how is this country going to be a weaker country because we do not produce millions of assault weapons to end up in the hands of gangs? let me say something about a young man at sandy hook. this is a young man who was disturbed.

he was maladjusted. his mother was a gun collector and gave him this weapon. took him to the range and taught him how to fire the weapon. the first person he's killed was his mother. then he went to sandy hook and killed brave adults and those children. when we hear the testimony from the emergency position about what those bullets did inside the body of those children, it is a sobering picture. i cannot get out of my mind trying to find -- i cannot get out on my mind walking into a crime and seeing the brain matter all over, the carnage. seeing these mass attacks continue to happen, i thought it would end with the texas bell tower, but it has not.

universities, schools, movie theaters, law offices, places of employment -- and these weapons become the weapons of choice. why allow them? this bill does not take a weapon from anyone. it simply talks about the future. it's as if you possess one, you have to keep it safely. if you sell it to anyone but a family member, they have to have a background check. it effects clips and ammunition feeding devices so people that want to go into a theater and kill 100 people, they cannot do it. i do not see that as being bad. i did not see that as harming america. we have so many guns. no nation has more guns in their civilian society then we knew.

you can compare murder rates. you can compare it with the u. k. and australia. digitssee a few double and then you'll see thousands in america. how is this a bad thing to do? i have been in this political career in a tumultuous city, a diversity. i have seen bright, young police officers. everyone thought they had a brilliant future. they were walking down 3rd street when a gang member with an ak-47 and shot them. how many times does this have to happen? it happens all over. that is why you can exempt her

tightly. they have been trained. they know how to use these. it is different from a grievance killer. very different from columbine and virginia tech. very different. the size of the clips, who needs it? would anyone respect someone with 30 rounds of clips going out and shooting deer? i do not think so. the problem is, i understand the right of people who want to collect these, and nothing takes any weapon away from anyone. to prove it, we have exempted many weapons. i have a hard time understanding why our country isn't better off with respect to some cases, but no legislation has been struck down. my last bill went through the

d.c. circuit. none have been struck down. no state bill and the last federal bill. i wanted to say that. thank you, he won. senator, i apologize. -- thank you, everyone. senator, i apologize. >> i ask for unanimous consent that my vote be voted as president and not by proxy. >> glad to have you back. your vote will be recorded as in person. i will have a statement as well. senator graham. >> thank you. i would like to make the same request.

i think i missed the boat, but i would like to be on record as president. -- presneent. i completely understand your point of view. i will vote no because of a couple of reasons. number one, the capacity of the clip, one bullet in the hands of a mentally disturbed person or a felon is one too many. there are thousands of these high-capacity clips in circulation today, but i can see a situation where an individual citizen would need more than six bullets or 10. most assaults, a third of the assaults occur by more than one perpetrator. i go back to the lady in atlanta a couple of months ago. a man broke into her home.

she was at home with her twin daughters. he had gotten out of jail and he had a crowbar. she ran up to the second-floor the house and hid in a closet with her children. she was on the phone with her husband. she had a 38 revolver. only six shots. the guy broke into the into the closet. she entered the gun. he was still able to get up. in that situation, it would not bother me at all if she had dirtier when hundred bullets. it does bother me what happened in connecticut and other places where people go in and take innocent lives with any kind of weapon and any kind of magazine. how do you interrupt the shooter? eu limit the size of capacity when you have mass shootings, it will get a break in the action so so intense off shooter. that make sense to a certain -- so someone can stop the shooter. that make sense to a certain extent. i think we can have a better system.

there is $300 million spent on securing the capital. you can unlock anywhere in here without some form of guard. why? this is the center of democracy. a lot of people would like to do harm of the building for what it stands for. the desert interrupt the shooter is to have a mental health system -- the best way to help the shooter is to have a mental health system. they should not be able to buy a gun. in south carolina, a woman was able to purchase a gun lawfully and pled not guilty to trying to kill the president of the united states. the system did not put her away. many murders last year, mr. mitch was a rifle -- the instrument was a rifle and not n an ar-15.

this bill would create a false sense of safety. there are circumstances where you had a situation where lawlessness took over because of , you do notral disaster have to agree with me. i served in afghanistan. uying ar-15.biting i have not even shot at yet. that is why i bought it. i would just ask just that this legislation has been tried before. it did not change things. after the heller case, i really do believe that there is a very good argument that traditional

lawful purposes such as self- defense, i can make a logical argument wherein ar-15 is better in circumstances than in other weapons. onlyoes not like i'm the one in america with this. there are 4 million. it is the number one selling rifle last year, i think. it can't be unusual in the circumstances of what is going on in american terms of people purchasing the rifle. having said that, i will vote no, but it is not about questioning senator feinstein's motives. we do see things differently. she has been doing this for a long time because she believes it will help. i believe it will not change things and is giving a false sense of safety and there are better things we can do in a

bipartisan way to address gun violence. the crooks will get the guns. if you find yourself meeting these crooks, i want to make sure you can defend yourself. >> i will stay here as long as anyone wishes to speak. there is going to be a vote. we will have to recess and come back. senator schumer, you have been patiently waiting. >> i want to make a point that has been referenced to the dialogue. even before heller, i go to upstate new york to gun clubs. people would say to me, why is it that people down in new york city one to interpret the first or the fourth amendment broadly and expensively and see the second amendment to the pinhole militias and only if you are

a member of the military you have a right to bear arms. they have a point. heller made that point in a constitutional sense. it said that there is a right to bear arms and a non-militia member has that right. i think that is a good thing that they said that. i have made speeches and arguments that those of us on the more progressive side should accept that argument, but heller made a second point. that is that there are limits to the second amendment the way there are limits on every other amendment. with regard to my good friend from south carolina, under heller, the d.c. circuit explicitly upheld the d.c. assault weapons ban as a reasonable limitation. my point is larger than that.

we have the inverse situation. some folks defend the second amendment. there are no limitations on the second amendment. many of those same people witho much more nearly interpret the other amendments. would you limit books? would you name specific books? yeah. it is constitutional within the first amendment to eliminate child pornography. we have lots of laws that are very explicit about that. they are constitutional and have been upheld by the constitution. similarly, you cannot scream " fire" in a theater.

there are reasonable limits on each amendment. i think for either side to interpret one amendment so expansively and another amendment so no early that -- narrowly, it does not add up. the interpretation should be consistent. itthis is true now. to too many people, there are no limits. it makes no sense. you can still believe in the right to bear arms, which i believe in, but say that there are certain arms that do not fall oin that. it seems to me that making sure

that there is a background check, making it more effective is constitutional. some on the other side have said it is not. i wish we could all come a little bit more to the middle on this issue. i wish those of us on this side of the table believe there is a right to bear arms and it is no less a part of the constitution than other parts of the constitution. i hope my colleagues on the other side would realize and recognize that there are reasonable limits on the second amendment, just as there are on all of the other ones. mr. chairman, thank you. >> i want to thank my colleagues from california and new york further statements. i would add that there are a couple of things i would like to note. today is march 14. it is three months since newtown

connecticut on december 14. what happened in that class room was a national tragedy. senator feinstein, thank you for bringing this back for our consideration. the ar-15 years that day to kill the innocent children and six brave teachers and administrators is a weapon that really should be restructured in this country. not for those who currently own them, but future sales. these assault weapon bans are constitutional. we held and expressed hearing on this, which you attended. the argument that this legislation is unconstitutional is decidedly a losing argument. justice scalia made crystal clear in the heller decision that there is a historical

tradition in our country are prohibiting of the caring of unusual and dangerous weapons. assault weapons are a disproportionately dangerous when used in an assault. they represent a small fraction of weapons in circulation. this notion that such a small percentage, the tragedy we have witnessed in the use of these assault weapons are reminders that we cannot stand is ledly b. -- idly by. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think all of us understand the passions that this topic elicits. in my view and on everything,

this topic should be driven by facts and data and by the constitution and not by passion. i would like to make four points. one, machine guns are functionally illegal. this topic is discussed in a public forum. when they hear the phrase assault weapon, they believe what is being discussed is fully automatic machine guns. the senior senator from california made reference to an ak-47. that is an automatic machine gun that is functionally illegal today. tragically, gang members do not follow gun laws. second, this bill, the data demonstrates it would be

ineffective in preventing violent crime. that is not surprising. as the hearings demonstrate, the weapons it would be prohibited by this bill are functionally identical for the semiautomatic deer rifles, millions of which are in circulation. cosmetic features at the end of the day make the guns appear scary but does not alter the basic mechanism. we, in fact, have seen what happens when a very similar bill is in effect. the prior assault weapons ban was in effect for a decade. there were studies on that bill and three times the studies were not able to find any stay activityically significant impact on violent crime as a

result of the assault weapon's ban. that is three studies in a row that is difficult to get away from. since assault weapons ban expired we're seeing murders by rifles half of what they were when the assault weapon's ban is in effect. this is not a law that has any reasonable prospect of reducing violent crime, something that even on this committee would like to see violent crime reduced. as my third point, if the reobjective is reducing violent crime, we should devote our time to far more effective steps. we should devote our time to laws that target criminals. we should devote our time to laws that improve the next background check. 18 states have submitted 100 or fewer mental health records to the background check program.

that's a serious problem. my home state of texas has submitted over 200,000 mental records to the system. i support the support on the floor for legislation that is targeted at violent criminals and not law-abiding citizens. if we want to go further and consider significant steps to stop violent crime i would suggest we could consider legislation or a constitutional amendment to to alter or repeal the excludeary appeal in hearings. that excludes evidence of guilty from violent criminals and has resulted violent criminals being freed over and over again. if the passion that is focused on this issue right now were targeted at preventing violent crime, i would suggest considering the impact of the

exclusionary rule would be more fruitful to stopping violent crime. i think we need to be serious about protecting americans from violent crime with every tool at our disposal. my fourth and final point is that the constitution, in my opinion, should be the cornerstone of everything we do. some suggest that the role of congress is to pass laws and it is up to the court to accept constitutionality. every one of us takes an oath to defend constitution. that is a fundamental obligation of every member of this body. there has been some suggestion that heller would allow this regulation. i would point out i'm not unfamiliar with the heller case. indeed, i represented 31 states

before the supreme court in the heller case. i have a familiarity with that case having being an active part of litigating it and winning the case. the supreme court said there are restrictions that are per missible. it -- per missible. >> such as, in that case, handguns were the principle issue that was being discussed. in the same argument why assault weapons can be banned on why handguns can be banned. the supreme court said no, if they are in common use for self-defense they cannot be banned consistent with the second amendment. we heard system there is four million weapons that would be covered by this bill. i would suggest on my measure four million weapons qualifies

in common use so under the terms of heller they can't be prohibited. the final point i would make on the constitution. some have pointed to public opinion polls. in my view, the constitution is particularly important when the bill of rights is unparticular -- unpopular. that is the point of the bill of rights. the purpose of it is to stand for the rights of the minority when the majority is acting to strip their rights. the senator of new york asked about other rights. i think we should protect every right in the constitution. just a last week a number of us spen 13 hours on the floor of the senate defending the fifth amendment, in particular, the right for americans not to be

denied their right to due process of law. and it was -- the point would made that the u.s. citizen cannot be killed by a drone on u.s. soil. >> i don't want to cut the senator off but he made the five of his four points. but we either vote in a few minutes and i would ask him -- if you want to make it longer i would appreciable the lecture of what we're supposed to be doing. i've been doing it for 38 years. i always need a reminder for someone who has been here not quite as long. i would like to let the other -- >> if i could have 60 more seconds to conclude? >> go ahead.

>> likewise early this week, this committee confirmed to do a study of film and video games on violent crimes. i believe in the first amendment, i believe in the second amendment and i believe in the fifth amendment and i suggest everyone would have an obligation to the constitution and i would welcome support for anyone who wants to fight for constitution. in my view, that should be our principle responsibility and obligation. >> senator whitehouse. >> i will speak briefly. i think it is clear where this is going and where the political forces have arrayed themselves. i would hope that as we go to the floor i can work with senator feinstein and others to make sure we get a separate vote

on the high-capacity magazines question. it is clear that the assault weapons ban has become the -- the other party is locked in against that. i don't see us getting 60 votes. i do think it is possible to get 60 votes on the high-capacity weapons ban. it is hard to imagine it could be a violation of the first amendment for somebody to yell fire in a crowded theater but it is not a violation of the second amendment to prevent someone from bringing a 100 round magazine into a crowded theater in aurora, colorado. we've heard specific testimony about lives that would be have been saved if there had not been high-capacity magazines. we heard from representative gifford's husband in the

shooting, he mentioned the child of the 13th shot victim that would not have happened if he had to reload. we heard about the aurora case, the consequence of having the high-capacity magazine. we heard from the police chief interest there has been no testimony to the contrary, indeed the republican witnesses have said that these high-capacity magazines, at least at some level are outside the heller decision. this was an admission of the pro gun witnesses. there is room to maneuver there. there is logic behind it. it does not interfere with the prescriptions of heller. i hope we can agree to get that passed. we can't unless we get a vote on it. i hope we can work together to get a vote on the high-capacity

magazine restriction. >> i appreciate it. there's been a lot of talk a what congress can do. so far, this is the only committee that has held hearings on gun violence ofette body and the only one that is actually taken up and passed out legislation. we've done it in two months time. senator? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to congratulate senator feinstein on this legislation. we've been debating this legislation three months. there are strongly held views on both sides, that is not just ok but it is good, obviously. i respect the opinions of every member. minnesota has rural areas. minnesotans feel different ways about this.

as the bill moves to the full senate, some of the bill's co-sponsors, i guess it is me and dick durbin remaining. we would like to talk to some of the arguments made against the bill. one of the arguments we've heard repeatedly is, independent justice departments studies proved that the last assault weapons ban was ineffective. i kind of wish the junior senator from texas was still here. during our first hearing one witness stated "independent studies, including the study if from the clinton justice department proves that the ban had no impact on lowering crime." during our last committee hearing, it was the junior

senator who said -- talking about that study, that was the janet reno department of justice under president clinton that said the ban was ineffective. during last week's executive meeting, one of my colleagues said "according to the department of justice's own study the ban was completely ineffective in reducing crime rates." these are simply not accurate portrayal yulls of the studies. here's what they actually say, as long as we have the staff here i would like you to hear that for your bosses. pages six and seven of the

study, recommend further study of the impact measures examined in this investigation. the ban effects on the gun market are still unfolding. page two of the 2004 study. it is premature to make definitive assetments of the impact on gun crime. page 80, it is premature to make definitive assetments on the impacts of the ban. it is still unfolding. page 98 of the 2004 report, the affects of the assault weapon ban and large capacity magazine

ban have yet to be fully realized. therefore, we recommend continued studies of trends and availability of criminal use of assault weapons and large capacity magazines. i could go on. the bottom line is that i don't see how anyone could read the d.o.j.'s studies and say they proved that the last ban was ineffective and, yet, that is what two members have stated. i respect their opinions, they have a right to their opinions. they don't have a right to their facts. if anything, the report suggests that the assault weapons ban

would be effective over time. the author's best estimate is that the ban contribute butted to a 6.7% decrease in gun murderers but the authors noted that the data was insufficient. the 2004 included an analysis of gun-trading data, which suggested that gun crimes fell by 2/3 after the last ban went into effect. a courtesy of my colleague from connecticut, i would like him to speak to a couple of the other arguments made that i think bear some rebuttal. >> senator blumenthal you've been recognized. please go ahead. >> thank you. >> i apologize. >> no apologize needed. >> i sense a hint of sar cause

im. >> we'll talk about this later. [laughter] >> i am hesitant to follow that exchange. thank you, chairman. i want to thank my colleagues -- >> i want to thank the senator, he brought up a point that should be emphasized over and over again. we all have opinions, we have to deal with facts. and the senator was dealing with facts and i appreciable that. senator? >> thank you chairman. i want to thank the senator for his factual rebuttal. and to senator feinstein for her relentless pursuit of this

measure, which consists of both a ban on assault weapons, which are defined carefully in this bill and high-capacity magazines. both were used in the massacre in newtown, connecticut. for me and to her this issue was personal. i was there within hours of the mass killing. i saw the depreef and pain that resulted from -- the grief and pain that resulted from that and that could not occur from assault weapons and a high-capacity magazine. lives were saved because the shooter had to change magazines. children escaped because he could not shoot more than the 30 rounds in the clip that he began

with. he did change clips and continued shooting with a weapon that was designed to be among the most lethal in the arsenal that military men and women carry with them in combat. it because weapon designed for combat to be as lethal as possible. that is essentially what defines the assault weapon that is banned in this legislation. it has a definition of characteristics such as a pistol grip, forward grip, threaded barrel, detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip. these are not there by accident. they are there because it makes this weapon many lethal and more dangerous. the argument for self-defense in

the constitution is -- it has been proved by heller. we can't deny it. but constitutionally that does not mean machine guns or constitutionally protected or any of the other kinds of weapons that the military carries to kill enemies. we've had a lot of testimony about these military characteristics from law enforcement, the chief, for example, who described the characteristics that make the weapons more lethal. the u.s. attorney who testified before our committee and from mayor nutter who said about them "they are offensive weapons. that is what you use them for because you're on offense."

so there are specific definitions in the bill that comport with the due process clause as with the specificity of the ban. i would just point out that the exemption for retired police officer based not only on their training, but on the role they can play in continued law enforcement. just as off-duty police officers and retired police officer can play a role in deterring or pursuing criminals. but the basic point here is children and educators would be alive today but for those -- the assault weapon and the high-capacity magazine that was used in that horrific criminal act of three months ago.

our law enforcement officers would not be out gunned if this ban was in effect. this is a law enforcement tool, it is supported by law enforcement officers and professionals. the other measures that are suggested here mental health, for example, has a role to play and so do some of the other initiatives that responsered and supported and passed from this committee. there's no single solution. there is no single state that can do this alone. we need this protection. i am apressure yittive that our chairman has -- apressure yitive that our chairman is allowing this to go to the floor. i will vote for both because i think both help us prevent

newtown, which was a call to action and we're heeding it today. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i thank the senator from connecticut. we've known each other for years in his capacity as the attorney general and more recently as a member of the senate. i appreciate what all of you brought to it. it has been a serious subject. when he said about the facts and that is right. that is something that should be driven home over and over again. senator feinstein who has devoted time on this, i think from the first time we met. i appreciate her devotion to it. it is not an abstract pie in the sky. i think if anyone reads the

history of it and how she became the mayor of san francisco would understand. senator blumenthal i remember your voice when you were about to go meet the families. we devoted our first hearing back in january. for years, we've asked this committee and we've asked democrats and republicans to come together as part of an a collective effort to find solutions to ensure that no families no community be made to endure the tragedies of the past two years whether it is in an elementary school in connecticut, a movie theater in

colorado, in a place of worship in wisconsin or in front of a shopping mall in arizona. after three hearings, four markup sessions we've completed our work. i will now work with the majority leaders to see how he intended to proceed. we have worked to try to provide law enforcement with stronger tools against illegal gun trafficking and to close that loophole. we've proposed closing loopholes in our background check system for firearm purchases. others have proposed restrictions on military-sized weapons and the size of ammunition clips. i know gun store owners in vermont. they follow the law, they conduct background checks to

keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them. they wonder why everyone doesn't have to do the same thing. i agree with them. if we can all agree criminals and mentally ill should not be buying firearms why shouldn't we plug the loopholes. why shouldn't they be subject to the same check when i buy a firearm or anybody else in this room? why should tnt the law apply to everyone the same? it is common sense. to improve the background check system are bipartisan and i hope we can make improvements in a bipartisan way. i've ordered that the second amendment is secure and will remain secure and protected. i yield to no member of this

committee. my devotion to protecting our constitution every part of our constitution. in two recent cases, the supreme court has confirmed to thing second amendment like other aspects of our bill of rights protects the individual right. americans have the right to self-defend and have guns in their homes to protect their families. no one is going to take their gun was. second amendment rights in the second amendment are not at risk. let's not put a issue out here that is not out here. but lives are at risk when responsible people are not following laws that would keep guns out of the hands of those who would commit mass murder. ours is a free and open society. let's come together to be a safer and more secure society.

we need consensus around common sense solutions. we do not need false charges about gun confiscation to scare people when no such thing is being proposed or will be proposed. these matters are too serious for that. so as we begin our efforts, i challenge other senators to come forward, to work teeng indicate what measures they will support. i thank the ranking member for making that effort. i will continue to work with him and others to see if we can find more things that we agree and more solutions that we can move forward together to make america safer. on a personal note, i appreciate so much the honor of being chair of this committee. it is a committee that i wanted

to be on since the day i came to the united states senate. i've had the privilege of being the longest-serving member of this body. i've seen times when republicans and democrats come together on serious issues. for the sake of our country, of our children, our grandchildren, let us come together and find some sensible, sensible steps that can make us safer as a nation. we are too great, too wonderful a country to do otherwise. >> well done, senator.

>> the democratic-led budget committee passed a budget plan for 2014. the party line vote was 12-10. that is next on c-span. president obama was back on capitol hill for a third meeting with lawmakers. this afternoon, the president met with senate republicans and house democrats. we'll hear more about the meetings later. on the next "washington journal" , a "wall street journal" reporter will talk about the budgets that the senate is working on this week. we're take your calls, e-mails, and tweets.

"washington journal" each morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> i think for dollly madison, what she offered us is a model for government that stressed stability and empathy. she's modeling this for us. we look to our founding generations because we need examples and role models. her way of connecting politics and building bridges and not bumpingers is a model that we can use for the future. >> conversation on dollley madison is on c-span. >> this story started in 1860 when congress finally acted after many decades of difficulty with private contractor printers in an effort to relieve their woe of waste and abuse.

they created an entity to do their printing for them. so congress' printer became the printing office. the short turn around of documents can be a routine occurrence from the way this place works. this document is the same as transcripts of the white house tapes from the nixon administration that were the investigation of the watergate burglary. this document was brought over late in the day and the entire transcript had to be prepared for the press and printed overnight. the first 50 copies went up to the white house very early the following morning. then the several thousand copies

for the congress went later in the day. this, i think is the origin of the phrase. >> this history of the government's printing office. that is part of american history tv this weekend on c-span3. >> the senate budget committee finished work on the democrat's budget proposal. it raises taxes and cuts spending. senator p.m. -- patty murray chairs this meeting.

>> good morning. our committee will come to order. we have a busy day and i want to welcome all of our members to day two. i want to mention a few procedural things before we get started. we're going to start today with members being able to ask technical questions. i would ask members to limit those questions to technical. my staff is not here to be in a political debate. we'll have the opportunity to do that next week. this is just technical so if we can keep it to that. we'll try to keep the period of questioning to no more than about an hour or less so we can move to the consideration of amendments. my hope is we can consider enough amendments to allow us to have a group of votes after lunch. we will alternate sides for offering of amendments. i will talk to senator sessions

so he can keep me apprised of the amendments and i ask the senators to limit their remark to three minutes with any rebuttal to two minutes. when we vote we'll limit it to one minute. if we get a longer discussion we'll be flexible. i want to remind members, we'll be consulting with our amendments that are offered to make sure they don't jeopardize the budget resolution. keep that in mind. a few other housekeeping items. while an amendment is being considered members have a right to modify or withdraw their amendment. i would ask members to refrain from offering the fifth of the amendments. and you must expressly state his or her intention. i know members have busy

schedules. i understand the president is coming to speak to the republican caucus. we're going to try to be as flexible as possible but we have a lot to work through and we're going to work until we get this out. i will work with senator sessions to coordinate votes. i will keep everybody apprised because i know everyone has busy days. i appreciate you accommodating the intense day with everything that is going on. we're going to open it up to staff questioning. senator sessions, do you wish to be recognized to be given that portion? >> yes, thank you. i do have a number of questions and a lot of people say the colleagues have declined to bring a budget because of vote. i think the real reason is that

it requires tough choices and we need to understand where the chairman's mark is on some of the great, tough choices that face the country. we need to make sure we're all in sync about what we can agree on on the basis -- basic numbers facing our country. focusing on the war efforts that are in the budget, i want to get this matter cleared. as i understand it, you assume that we will spend on overseas operations $75 billion over the next 10 years. president obama's budget that he submitted last year assumed we would spend $494 billion. we have not yet seen his budget

this year. it was due february 4 and we have not seen it, amazingly. is that correct? >> yes, in the chairman's mark we have $100 billion in fiscal 2013. $50 billion for f.y. 14 and $25 billion in f.y. 15. beyond that, we have reserve funds in place. as the president comes forward with new policy going forward and justified more we can -- >> of course, he can ask for more and congress can give more but you don't budget for any more? you budget for eight years, is that correct? >> yes. >> we disagree with that. i think the president's numbers are far more creaningt i would suggest that's a $400 incorrect

assumption in the budget -- $400 billion incorrect assumption in the budget. with regard to the sequester, it is current law. it limits and sets our spending limits. it can only be violated with a 60 vote point of order. and it was designed to make sure we have a firm cap on spending. i thought too high, most of us understand the spending route we're on today is unsustainable. we've been told that route is unsustainable. as i understand it, your budget would eliminate the sequester, therefore by, sbretion spending to $900-some odd billion dollars. with that money, because it has to be borrowed, it would amount to $1.1 trillion in new spending.

isn't that correct? >> the chairman's mark lays out a path where we turn off the sequester due to its impact to the economy and middle-class families and replaces it with a balanced plan. >> i'm aware that's the purpose and that is what you would like to do. we'll get into that in a minute. as a simple question as a budget expert. under the current law, the sequester is law, it has been signed by the president of the united states as part of a budget control act agreement and it sets the spending level for current law. you just don't turn it off. you have to pass a law to eliminate it. if you do, it increases spending with interest over $1 trillion, does it not? >> you can say that about any of these, including with the ryan's budget. >> i'm not talking about mr.

ryan. if you eliminate the sequester as you propose to do, it increases the base line spending of what we were projecting over $1 trillion. does it not, yes or no? >> the sequester was -- >> yes or no? >> it was meant to be replaced. it was nonets backstop the committee. >> but you are -- >> i just remind we're asking technical questions. let's let them respond and if you want a political debate i'm happy to -- >> i'm just asking a simple question, a technical question. i need a simple answer. the answer is not politic, not what you thought the sequester was, might be, or was never intended to be. it was signed by the president of the united states. it was passed by the congress of

the united states. if you don't adhere to that it allowed for spending above the current base line of over $1 trillion. yes or no? >> true but i would say, mr. ryan also -- >> then i would ask where do you get the money in your budget to pay for this $1.1 trillion in new spending? >> again, we lay out in the budget with our $975 billion in revenue as well as the constant remain to defense and nondefense programs a path when we replace the $960 billion -- >> what are the items and spending elsewhere that would replace the sequester? >> within the chairman's mark we lay out, again, the sequester

replacement new caps on nondefense discretionary and defense discretionary as well as cuts on the military side that will be used to replace the cut system we have. >> are those included in the $975 bill in spending reductions you claim? >> yes. >> how can you use the spending reductions and use those as reducing the deficit and also repolice station the increased spending in the sequester? isn't that double counting the money? >> we're using a current policy base line as is mr. ryan. we have differences of what we view as current policy. i don't think anyone thinks that the sequester will remain as was. mr. rye unputs you would all the

defense cuts and puts it on the nondefense side. >> it is honest and paid for and you can look at it. i reject the idea, you being a technical person should be the force understand this, the law is not law. we have a budget sequester now. if it is eliminated it raises $1.1 trillion. you're telling the american people that you're going to reduce the deficit by $1.9 trillion and i believe you're using the money twice. i believe your providing cuts that you're telling me are used to pay down the sequester. isn't that correct? >> no, sir. at the end of the day, keeping consistent with what simpson bowles put out there. whether you start with your current base line and we add

$700 billion to or we start at the chairman's base line and we're at $2.4 trillion. it doesn't matter. >> let me ask the question again. so you've got tax increases of $975 billion. you claim spending reductions of $975 billion and you add those up and you say you've reduced the deficit by $1.9 trillion. does it reduce the deficit, your budget as a whole, $1.9 trillion? >> with the jobs and the investment package the number we use is $1.85 trillion. >> so you stand by that number? are you counting the $1.1 trillion in added expenditure by turning off the sequester?

>> again, i think the important point -- >> not the important point. >> $4.3 trillion is what we've done. whether you want to start from your base line and we've added to that or you want to start at the chairman's base line. what matters is the $4.3 trillion or if we're starting at our current policy or your current policy base line. >> you represent the taxpayers of the united states. i'm trying to represent them to. i'm asking a simple question. let me ask you again. can you honestly say that under this budget you can achieve the deficit reduction and eliminate the sequester with only $975 billion in new taxes? >> no, but it -- >> that's is --

>> senator sessions if we can let them answer. >> if we're going let the staff answer questions then let them answer the question. >> the answer is no first. >> i think the base lines are complicated. but part of this started -- part of the $4 trillion has such importance because it started with the fiscal commission, which had $4 trillion targeted. counting that and we have $4.3 trillion and you're right you can get a different answer depending on which base line you use. using the chairwoman's is $1.9 trillion on top of the $2.9 trillion. the difference, you're right, is the sequester. either way the savings happen. where you count it is less relavent as long as people

understand that at the end we do $4.3 trillion. >> i don't understand a thing you said. the budget you submitted and the chair said in her opening statement this, this is a budget document. the senate budget includes $1.85 trillion in total deficit reduction. you just told us that is not correct. >> that is correct. it is correct versus the base line we're using, which is the same base line that the president used and the simpson bowles used, almost everyone uses except for mr. ryan. you just have to understand why they are different. >> only in america, in the united states of america budget process that bankrupting this country can we not agree on $1.1

trillion. >> i think you will agree that is likely that will change, the sequester law. >> so you're taking a political statement as a budget analyst here and staff director and you're taking the political view that somehow this is going to be turned off. it is going to be changed and therefore you don't have to account for the increased spending of $1.1 trillion? >> we're accounting for everything in the end. mr. ryan also assumes it is going to be changed. he takes all the savings on the defense side and puts it in the nondefense side. there is bipartisan agreement that the sequester law as written is not functional and won't stand for nine years. i think it is a sensible adjustment to the base line that there will be a different current policy. >> we're going to go back and forth here a little bit. >> i don't think this matter is

closed. colleagues, i don't think it is close. i believe you are not counting, -- not bleaving it is a fact, you're not counting the $1.1 trillion that increases spending when you change the sequester and as a result you can't use your new tax revenue to pay for it. if you use them then you haven't reduced the deficit because you've raised the spending. >> senator, we're clearly -- >> let me finish, sir. i believe it is a very wrong thing. i don't believe it can be argued coinue to persist in that argument. you can't flip flop base lines around here all over the place. you claim under your base line that you're going to eliminate the sequester, which would add

$116789 trillion with interest in spending. you then claim, you achieve -- you're not counting that against your savings -- >> we're very clear on what we've done in our base line. the backup is there. we're clear that we plan to replace the sequester. mr. ryan plans to replace the sequester. >> mr. ryan is not here. his budget is not before us. >> i think you will hear a lot about it today, sir. >> senator sessions, i'm going to go back and forth here. i want to ask the staff to explain why the this budget does not double count. can you explain how it does not double count the money? >> we're starting from a base line that pulls it out then we fully replace it, we replace it from a different part of

savings. you are correct. we're not doing 100% out oist from spending, some of it is from revenue, some of it is from other spending. that is the policy of the democrats the entire year. it is a policy choice. that is not double counting anything. that is a policy choice they are making. they are clear on how they are doing it and how they are repolice station the sequester. that should be part of the debate you would want to have here today. >> they are commonly used to measure deficit reduction? >> absolutely. >> do you have a question? >> thank you. from my own standpoint if i'm looking that the correctly, we're aiming for $4 trillion in deficit reduction. we've been told by many many, people that this will allow us to turn the corner on a deficit reduction and support -- growing

the economy. of that, we have already committed to $2.4 trillion-plus in deficit reduction. to hit that $4 trillion, we have to find in some way $1.6 trillion plus interest essentially. one way to do it is the sequester. $1.2 trillion in the sequester. that is one way. the chairwoman's budget does it a different way. so we are saying instead of using sequester to get $1.2 trillion of it because it doesn't reflect common sense or judgments about spending that makes sense versus things that don't make sense. instead of using sequester, we use what is in this budget,

which is basically, meets the $1.6 plus interest. in total, it is $1.85 trillion. is that correct? >> yes, that -- to john's point earlier. if you look at our target and to get to all the bipartisan groups that simpson bowles wanted us to get to. we're putting forward a a path to get to $4 trillion, to get to a mark that you set out to hit. >> basically, one way is to reduce the sequester plus adding things. one way is to do it the way we're doing it, which is instead of across the bored cuts, doing it in what we would view in a more balanced way. one way, the sequester, the other way is what we're doing.

thank you. >> any other members want to ask -- did you want to offer amendments or did you want -- >> go ahead. >> senator, as leader of the agriculture committee asked me not to offer amendments that i normally offer. in regard to the farm bill i would like to ask questions of the staff. it assumes $23 billion in savings, mandatory spending by reforming agriculture programs. this is the same amount that the agriculture committee attempted to save in the farm bill we passed last year. that bill contained my proposal in reforming the payment limitation laws, that is usually what is offered an amendment on. those reforms helped to

contribute to the savings in the farm bill. >> the chairman's mark does not get into that level of detail. >> ok. >> we want to make sure that the ranking member can move forward with the full farm bill that supports many of the goals to help our rural committeeties and families. we expect, you know, if that mark were to be moved forward that she will be able to move forward like she did a year ago with a full farm bill to take care of the rural communities. >> the farm bill sid $23 billion but the c.b.o.'s reestimate found that the passed farm bill now would reduce spend big $13 billion relative to the most

recent base line. where does the chairwoman's mark assume the additional savings and spending will come from? >> the difference between $23 billion and $13 billion that the c.b.o. says we're not going to get if we pass the same farm bill. >> we're aware what the c.b.o. as brought forward. in this consultation, the number $23 billion made the most sense and we believe that she and the senator can move forward at this level with a farm bill that addresses significant deficit reduction and also preserves the safety net for the next five years. >> my last question on this subject -- getting back to the $23 billion. it appears to come from commondy

programs and crop insurance. is that accurate? if that is accurate, is there any savings in nutrition assumed by the chairwoman's mark? >> i have to get back to you on the specifics on how the $23 billion is broken down. i believe it is all in one function at this moment. >> could you tell us if there's any savings from -- i know there are save frgs farm programs or commondy programs and crop insurance. is there any save frgs crop nutrition -- savings from crop nutrition? >> i do not want to get into a debate with staff members. your questions -- i just want to make clear i don't want to get

into a long debate. >> she and i have no differences. >> let me clarify because the senator has important questions. in asking him that we do our job in the agriculture committee rather than doing farm bill amendments here. i support his amendment and it is in our bill. my assumption is it will be nur n our bill. because of the way the budget resolution is written and the functions, we have the savings coming out of the general agriculture function but within the language, within the budget, we lay out that we would have conservation, knew situation, -- all of the things we looked at. we will be doing this -- >> i'm interested in the assumptions that the chairwoman has in her budget. >> it is in the language. it is in the language underneath the budget -- >> then you tell me if they don't tell me.

is all the money coming from crop insurance and commondy programs or sum coming out of nutrition? >> we have the flex teeblet take it out wherever we want to. -- flexibility to take it out wherefore we want to. >> your mark, not seeing where these programs are coming from? >> that is correct. >> ok. i yield the floor. >> if you want to have a question -- a technical question let us know. we'll go to senator johnson, senator warner. >> thank you. i want to try to understand your $1.85 trillion in deficit reduction against some base line. i believe we're talking about the c.b.o. base line. that has been published. if you write a few numbers down

here i would appreciate it. the chairman's mark is $46.4 in -- >> yes. >>baseline is $32 trillion. let's figure out the difference. war spending. how much of the 46 is war spending? we have $75 billion and i thought you said $200 billion. how much more spending is in the chairman's mark? >> [talking over each other] >> we will rounded to $200 billion to keep it simple. the cbo baseline is $1 trillion. so we are going to have to

adjust the baseline by about $800 billion. apple's apples. is there any sandy -- >> only 2013. >> that is $300 billion. we would have to lower at another $300 billion for comparison. in terms of interest, the base line is $200 billion more in interest expense, correct? that is correct, so we are looking at apples to apples. we totaled about $1.30 trillion that we have to reduce the base line to compare apples to apples, is that correct? >> this gets to the same issue i was talking about. >> apples to apples, if we take $47.20 trillion, the comparable

baseline in terms of outlays is $45.90 trillion. that is 49.9. is that correct? >> that is the current policy baseline. >> you have just adjusted for the current policies. >> we pull that out. and then the interest is $200 billion, we pulled that out. >> this has gone a step further. >> that is complicating the situation.

it's been $500 billion more than the cbo baseline? >> $47.20 trillion. >> this will be comparable. how much will the german mark? i am trying to compare apples to apples and that is very difficult with government accounting. take the base line, pulled out the spending, it is comparable. >> i would go a step further and do the sequester. have to do that. the comparable figure is $45.90 trillion vs $46.40 trillion. i would say it taxes $1 trillion more. >> i don't agree with that.

>> it is actually $500 billion. >> under the current policy baseline and that you are using, yes. but that is not what the chairman is using. >> the problem is that we are not talking about the same numbers than. >> the first number you gave me was the base line. >> but we have to adjust that. the base line includes $800 billion more in a war spending, $300 billion more in sandy spending. we will pull that out to make it comparable period >> i know it is confusing, and i am really sorry. >> he would talk about the sequester with the cbo, wouldn't you? >> that is the point. we put in a different mix of savings.

what is relevant here is to get to $4.30 trillion. we are already at $3.60 trillion. we still get $4.30 trillion by adding $700 billion. or if you want the chairman to start, you can do that package and you get 190. >> you are totally confusing the situation. that number is totally false. >> we are very clear with how we laid it out. >> it is very technical, i am trying to get to the numbers. >> i don't want this to be erupting into a political debate and we will have time to do that on the floor. senator sessions, i would ask one thing. i like a limit to five minutes to each person so we can get through all of us.

>> i object to that. the reason we're having difficulty is because this staff is failing to be responsible for the senator's question. senator johnson is exactly correct. he is counting stuff not even in the budget, not relevant to anything other than policy. we are asking the staff specific questions and we expect answers. we are looking at a situation where your double counting and not counting the $1 trillion in extra spending. you're not counting $1 trillion in extra spending by say we are going to turn off the sequester which allows a trillion dollars more in spending to occur, and not count it. that is what we want to know. and we can find out before this day is over. i will accept to being in error

if i am wrong about this. but i can't possibly see any other way that i have explained it. >> we have other members that want to ask questions. >> if we can't agree on the $1 trillion, we are showing how the country is in such financial shape. >> i know we have a difference of opinion on this and i want the staff to ask technical questions. i know we will have time to debate this over the coming months, but can we let everybody the five minutes on questions so that we have an opportunity to answer questions. if you disagree, i will have to move this along, or we will not be able to -- >> five men at one time or multiple rounds? >> i am fine with multiple rounds, but the more time we do this, the last time we have to adopt for amendments.

if we can do this in a reasonable amount of time, there will be a debate following this. >> i missed the beginning of this, and maybe i can get caught up. i would acknowledge that the current law vs. current policy baselines get you into a crazy world. i spent lots of time on assumptions working on bull's simpson, one resumption was $1.20 trillion that new revenue and another was $2 trillion in net revenue. and i think the challenge, and i find this all the time in current law verses' current policy, it means that each side picks whenever assumption that there is a need to try could make certain assumptions. i know senator johnson just made

certain assumptions from a current policy base line. democrats was the one i believe that was used. i like to get with senator sessions offline to look at -- >> high-value very much because you have deeply been involved in this over time, but i believe that it is possible for us to agree on what base lines we are talking about? >> i think it is, but i would just add that for example, one of the things that somebody who has may be advocated for more reform, here is where we can get into the apples and apples comparison. we had top line numbers based upon all the bipartisan reforms that have medicare, health care

savings somewhere in the college that wanted more. when using those numbers against the baseline, there are a certain number of assumptions. the bass lines that come out have the rise in health-care costs dramatically lowered. we got in the tenth year, medicare savings now built into the new base line of $500 billion. again, we could say that the democrats got -- we have done more based on the baseline. i don't think that is the case, but i would like to get with your staff and see. i don't think we have the votes counted, but i would love to hear the argument. the one thing that we ought to be striving at, it is one of the

reasons why i think the public has a hard time understanding how these debates back-and- forth. what is our goal with the out year, the only goal that is really the best measurement is what the debt to gdp ratio is. that when you can't fudge that much. i think this gets as close to 70%. congressman ryan got it lower, i don't agree with how we got there, but i think this baseline argument, we can spend hundreds of hours assuming different things. it is one that you can't fudge.

find that this is not the place for congressman ryan to budget. a lot of the same assumptions were baked into all of the previous policy assumptions and the gang of six. i am not sure i have cleared up anything other than the fact that i would love to hear your assumptions. and that the gdp in the out years ought to be a goal that we can agree on. >> i respect all the work you have done. that the gdp according to their budget document remains above 90% throughout this period gross

debt, not government that. -- government debt. >> 94% as the gross federal thadebt. the publicly held debt is 70%. the gross which includes the government's own holdings is 94%. most of that being for social security. >> are you done with your questions? very good. >> we are talking apples to apples. it is just comparing in terms of the numbers.

that is the first thing we have to do. >> i did not have a good success yesterday so i will have the clerk pressing the button for me. when does the chairman's mark get us to a balanced budget? >> the chairman's mark focuses on having a credible half, one that focuses on jobs and the economy, one that has a credible and irresponsible mix of policies. >> is this coming out of my time?

i am going after technical questions. it never gets us to balance. >> i am not saying that, it is a 10-year model that we have used. >> based on the trajectory, when you think it would balance? >> i have a 10-year model that i use. what is the deficit in 2023? >> 566. 2.2%. >> how much does the chairman's mark raise taxes? >> relative to the current policy baseline, $975 billion. >> either way you look at it, over $900 billion in additional taxes.

>> in additional revenue, yes. >> how much does it raise taxes? >> i don't think it raises taxes. the policy is to go after spending. not different from mr. ryan though he would put it toward lowering rates. there is new revenue relative to current policy. >> is it accurate to say that by increasing this revenue, it enables the chairman's mark to engage in higher spending. >> it is part of the balanced approach that we want. comes mr. ryan's saving from spending. the chairman's mark is two to

one in spending cuts relative to revenue savings. i think it is trying to go for a balanced approach. >> i have to say this. i really am trying to ask technical questions and a balanced approach is a policy debate and a political debate. the final question. yesterday, i have not seen the budget, but i guess that it would grow the size of government by 5% every year on average over 10 years. was i correct? >> i think it was 4.7%. >> thank you very much, i appreciate that.

>> ellis trying to follow the debate on bass line and making sure i understand the finish point. if the debt held by the public, how does that compare to the very wide range and different views of economists and policy groups? >> they are around 87%. >> the center was asking -- suggesting that we can have significant debates, what our recommendations by different groups? 70%hey're looking for the target. >> stabilizing the debt and getting it out as the partisan goal. >> does that allow you to see past the significant differences in current law vs. current policy?

>> those are just the numbers. >> thank you, madam chair. a follow up on the last question. i understand we're talking gross debt, and the public that we held -- and i don't think that is a bipartisan agreement. i think they were talking gross debt. >> i am at least getting down to 70%. >> what is what we owe to the public today? >> 77%. >> we are close to the target already. >> we bring it down each and every year.

it floats by 2023. >> there could be a trillion dollar savings that has been achieved, and what is the makeup of that? >> $600 billion in revenue at the end of the der -- and of the year deal. about $300 billion. it would be a combination of the caps and what was done. >> that does not include sequestration? >> that would be on top of it. >> let me shift to another number.

when you talk about entitlement cuts included in the proposed budget, and there are entitlement cuts proposed, what is the amount of those entitlement cuts? >> left $275 billion in mandatory health cuts. $265 billion in medicare. >> are those numbers included in a reconciliation construction? how would they be achieved if they are not? >> proving they can easily cut medicare and medicaid, the chairman's mark continues to believe that we do not need a filibuster proof fast-track authority to get those cuts.

>> the tax increases are in reconciliation. >> that is right. >> is it true that they are not included in the summary tables? >> they provide the chairman the opportunity to go back later to open the resolution as needed to make adjustments and decide the best way to pay for the policy that is allowed for ha. >> this is getting down into the weeds a little bit but i am concerned about what congress has gotten. it appears to me that this budget is exacerbating the problem. congress passed a payroll tax cut. it is a 10. basis. a directive that money to the

treasury department rather than allowing it to be utilized from a mortgage system. is it accurate that it will direct them rather than protecting the taxpayer is from the mortgage losses? >> it assumes that we extend these for two more years. it is $7.60 billion. >> we want to make sure we get the fees back into paying down the taxpayer. >> maybe we had not put it into the budget. >> i would like to return to the fundamental question. >> i got a letter of the night

before we voted. we were double calving the medicare with hundreds of billions of dollars to fund the program. the question was asked a different way. it added to the death. -- debt. >> in the government, we can't get agreement in the matters involving hundreds of billions of dollars, trillions of dollars . it seems that you're calling for the elimination of the sequester that can contain spending by $1.10 trillion with interest, and that is not offset by the money you're using to offset

it, it can't be used to pay down the deficit. if you use the tax revenue to pay for the increase in spending by eliminating the sequester, you take the numbers if it were passed by you. actions occur as you wish them to occur. you're claiming a $1.90 trillion in total deficit reduction. it would appear to me that the $1.10 trillion in sequester would reduce that to about $700 billion. is that correct?

relative to current loss. your statement suggests that under the current process, you have a plan that we referred to reduce our deficit additionally by $1.85 trillion. i say if you eliminate the sequester, you don't come close to that. >> our current policy is were the 1.85 comes from. we do have a policy for replacing be sequestered. we do it with a mix of revenue and spending savings. >> relative to current law, under your plan, how much deficit reduction would occur?

>> if you want to go to a straight cbo baseline, it would be a 1.75. if you want to make the adjustment, it is much less. the total is about $700 billion. i think we have been very honest about that. it depends on who you want to compare to. >> that is the answer. $700 billion. what i am telling you is, they have claimed that this budget will change how the debt course of america by 1.85 trillion dollars. but if you acknowledge the increased spending that occurs from sequester elimination, it takes it down to 700. i believe without question that

we should use close to the present numbers on the war and that is another $400 billion you have added him properly to the reduction score. you would reduce your deficit, and your change would be $300 billion. >> we don't count any money. >> you are interrupting me, sir. >> i am clarifying. >> looking at your numbers, your only reducing $30 billion a year. that is not changing the that course of america and is on a clearly unsustainable path. i am disappointed that you weren't open and explaining that when i asked that originally. >> i would disagree with the analysis you have just put out. we have worked very hard to

build on what has already occurred for a very smart and pragmatic path forward at a time when the economy is very fragile. a couple more questions on our side and another on this side. and then we need to move on to the amendments. >> this is just following up on the double accounting issue. let me just direct it this way. the assumption of the amount of deficit reduction thus far is a very good consensus figure about the amount of deficit reduction done before the sequester, correct? if we had added 1.2, we could have said we did $3.60 trillion. but we did not do that.

in fact, we indicated we were not taking credit for the 1.2 reduction that we were assuming the state of affairs of $2.40 trillion of deficit reduction. if we had added that in, and we said, we are now saving another trillion, under that circumstance, we would have been double counting. but we did not do that. we assumed the state of affairs of 2.4 and added the 1.8. so the fundamental difference is whether you think these sequester should be permanently factor than has a good idea and a good policy for the country or whether you think there should be an alternative to the sequester. because they assume we should come up with an alternative, we factor it out of current production and build a package

equally mixed between spending and revenue that ultimately gets us to $4 trillion in deficit reduction. >> we will go back and forth. >> let me try to come at this from a different direction. it will equal $26 trillion? you have a calculation on the chairman's mark? >> 24.3. >> are they including the $800 billion more and more spending? >> as we have talked earlier, they have were spending. >> another couple hundred billion dollars.

we need to take $26 trillion and reduce it by 1.3. correct? 24.7? that is $400 billion of debt reduction over the cbo baseline. that is really the bottom line. if you're talking about $1.85 trillion in deficit reduction, shouldn't your dad be $1.80 trillion less than what the cbo is suggesting? >> we are very clear how we get to the current policy baseline. >> it is what is included in spending versus what is not included. they include in that figure $800 billion.

it includes $300 billion that you don't include. you made me get that by increasing taxes. the point being, the reduction you claim is a total fallacy. $400 billion when you take that.

you are just confusing the issue and this is very simple. it is $1.30 trillion taken away , and your deficit-reduction is $400 billion. until we can agree on basic numbers, how could we ever come to an agreement? >> some of them are policy differences. >> they are not we do not believe we need a disaster where it is. the chairman's mark, they also believe we would be getting rid of 1.2 in the sequestered and fully replacing it. >> you want to compare apples to

oranges and i am trying to compare apples to apples. the debt is 21.3 trillion. >> that is false. >> i am done. >> you could make assumptions based on policy base lines. there were assumptions made about amt, fgr, whether we're going to deal with it or not. there were assumptions across the board in all of these

federal budget baselines to make policy assumptions. are they made in the chairman's mark? >> from the ryan budget, yes, he does not do the sequester. >> the notion that they are dropped out of the sky, a new set of doubles vs. all of the other marks that have been used in this budget debate the last four years is not the case. i want to reiterate what the senator cain has said. i think the $2.4 trillion assumption of what we've done is

at the high side. i can imagine the response we would get from my colleagues and from the press if they came in here and said the chairman's mark started the assumption that we did $3.60 trillion and all we have to do is $400 billion more. that would be laughed out of the room. it is a very reasonable assumption. we have got to get it and it is

arbitrary marks. of thisthink the idea policy discussion we have been having for the last four years on this topic. >> we are going to wrap up because we need to go to the amendments. >> on the baseline debate we are having, there is a lot of consensus about what policy assumptions we can make in the baseline. but we are a budget committee and we are dealing with current law. we can work with assumptions but they have to fit with the spending that we are living

under. we have to make sure that we don't lose sight of the fact that as we make assumptions, they will have a real impasse. and they have real consequences on what is actually happening in the spending and taxing of this government. the question i have is related to a point i made in my opening statement. that is i have served in the house of representatives and the senate over a time where we have adopted a lot of budgets. we used to do five-year budget and now we do 10-year budgets. congress actually moved into the second year of one of the budgets it has adopted. until the last year's, they will

adopt a new budget. next year, there will be another first year with a set of out years. the interesting projections and the assumptions about what we will or should do is not the reality. the reality is the first year. what happens in the first year of this budget? and particularly hot, add to the outlays in the first year of this budget exceed the outlays of last year's budget? and if so, how much by dollars and%? -- by dollars and percentage? >> are you talking about 14 over 13?

about $116 billion higher. >> i've got to know that you have a percentage, but can you give me a rough estimate? >> that is a 3% growth. >> in terms of the reduction that is achieved either through taxes or spending reductions that are claimed in the budget, what percentage of those his achieved in the first year? you were talking about $1.85 trillion deficit reduction over 10? how much of that is year one? >> there are spending savings in the first year that is zero in total, because there is a savings and spending costs. >> 0?

>> on net. >> which confirms my worry because i don't have confidence we will get the year to. but your one achieved no net deficit reduction >> i would not say that from what we have already done, outlay savings relative to what we did also including be sequestered. there are savings right now that are happening and what we're trying to do is provide the flight path knowing that we have a lot of savings and also having some ability to deal with the jobs in the economy message. >> but zero happens in year one. >> on net, roughly zero. >> on the first year, we put in

place an economic package to stimulate the economy similar to what some symbols and the other by partisan groups agreed it was critical to do. >> yes, it includes a substantial jobs and investment packages. that is all spent in year one? the specific numbers, we can get those. but the first part is where most of it is laid out. >> most of it is in years 1 and 2. my point, there is a spending program and it is true that the recommended that all the the also said that at some point, we have to get past the stimulus

idea and get the deficit reduction. my point is just to show that we need budget enforcement procedures or mechanisms developed by this committee so that we can get past year one sunday. this budget is not different from any of the other budgets i have seen in this regard, but it is the same hall. if we don't achieve any of the savings we are talking about, then we need to have a budget enforcement mechanism. >> one quick question. how much does this budget estimate the economy will grow over the next decade? gdp growth?

>> nominally, we are using the cbo baseline of about 5% over 10 years. >> the us certain things that we should be able to agree on and i think that we are finally reaching the accord when he said $700 billion. under current law, we had a projected spending plan. the announcement made in this budget that we would reduce and have a $1.85 trillion in total deficit reduction is not correct. at best, it is $700 billion, and if you take away your exaggerated savings, it is $300 billion.

when the american people hearing this, they are hearing democratic colleagues say they are reducing the deficit by $1.85 trillion. and that can only mean that half of our current path of spending. it can only mean that -- i am disappointed saying that it does not do that. it basically makes no change in the that course of america and certainly does not balance the budget. >> i believe we have a very big difference of opinion on the assumptions of the budget. we did not assume in the savings that the sequester was going to go in place. in your remarks, you are, so the

way that this is calculated would be very different if we began with the assumption the sequester was going to take place. we would be talking about 3.6 towards the current path that would change all of the numbers. we're very clear talking about 2.4 already enacted. we are adding 1.9 trillion dollars to it. i think it is a solid plan moving forward and will have the opportunity to debate get a lot and i think it is critical that we get to the amendments. >> thank you for allowing us to express this. when you make a policy change to remove the sequester, you should support it. if you don't score your policy

change. >> we will be debating this for a while. we will move two amendments and we will begin with the most senior member. >> thank you. i will go from the global to what i think is an important issue, a bit more mundane. senator johnson and i worked on portions of it. we all have federal employees. it is fairly outrageous, very slow on processing and retirement benefits.

there are constant threats of shutdowns, questions about changing retirement benefits. they could be received in a timely manner. it is when we see eye to eye on in. we can decrease the current backlog. they have made progress in pennsylvania and we have got it down the 41,000 cases. there is still more to be done. they can support improvements.

this amendment i am offering today is deficit neutral. it creates the tool that we use, the reserve fund to improve the budget. the future changes in retirement, with all of those things being debated, at least we ought to get common cause in the fact that those folks that have retired deserved benefits and a timely manner and don't have to wait months or years. one can hope that all of my colleagues will be supporting it. thank you, madam chair. >> is there further debate?

>> if we reduce the backlog, it reduces the workload in terms of time spent and over time should actually reduce the cost of government. i appreciate the leadership on this. >> you and i would not have been impressed with the caseload. we need to see greater improvement. >> i would congratulate senator warner. >> this is an amendment that calls upon the breakdown of the government service.

they spent a lifetime and this is a way to solve that problem. we will hold this amendment as we will all of them for a vote after the lunch hour. which amendment do you want to offer first? >> the balanced budget amendment, is there a number on this? basically, what this amendment would do, it would not raise taxes, and keep the tax rate and tax revenue levels as they are today. hopefully we would have tax reform and simplification as we go forward. if we keep the revenue levels at the same rate, it would control the growth of spending and

maintain the growth of spending each year at 3.4%. the net result of that would be our budget will balance. we can increase spending at 3.4% and still balance the budget. this would remove the that cloud over the country that is already impacting negatively employment, jobs, wages, growth. there is a question about grows that and public debt. -- gross debt and public debt. at that level, it would reduce growth pretty clearly. the international monetary fund,

the bank of international settlement, the european central bank has come forward with studies that confirmed in a rather stark way, the analysis that has been done. when debt reaches the leve we have today, it slows growth now. it creates a risk as secretary geithner told us before the committee. the way that exchange went, we asked about the study. it is one that we should pay attention to and he added, i have to say, in some ways, it does not deal with the risk of a fiscal crisis. a kind of risk -- the question

is, don't we need to take action now to reduce the debt? and get our data at a level that does not adversely impact the economy -- debt at a level that does not adversely impact the economy? other studies reached the same conclusion. the united states that is so high that it is already weakening -- debit is st is so high, it is already weakening the economy. we want to see it grow and it benefits workers, benefits employees and creates more tax revenue for us. that is the central question

that we have. this amendment, i believe, moves us in the right direction. it gives us the opportunity to end the deficits. as a percentage of gdp, it goes down every year. thank you. >> let me respond and i believe we will have some debate. to begin, all of us recognize that it is a responsibility that we have right now to deal with our debt and deficit in a responsible manner and we all want to achieve that goal. we recognize the economy is very fragile. we have lived through a lot in the last 10 years. many families are still struggling to send their kids to college and pay their mortgage,

tuesday and their homes. the budget we put forward cackles the debt and deficit and irresponsible way were we all want to get to a place with that in deficit. -- debt and deficit. the package we have put forward does it in a credible way without further damaging our economy. the path that the amendment put the song is a very dangerous place where families will be hurt even more than they have been and put us in a place that will be virtually impossible for the country to recover from this economy. we believe that it needs to be done in a responsible and credible manner. we have worked hard to put together a budget that does that. we think it is the responsible way so that we don't shred the safety net.

it would create an order to achieve the goal that senator sessions amendment does. every family understands this, every business understands this, and you want to manage your debt responsibly. and we all in her - -incur d -- incur debt to do this. to put in an arbitrary deadline of 10 years, any community

budget and the national budget that we have in front of us. the democratic budget really works to find a responsible and credible way. and an arbitrary deadline of 10 years would put an incredible economic anand create -- an incredible economic challenge and instability. we can do it in a responsible way and that is what we need to move forward doing. >> thank you, madame chairman. it seems to me that limiting the rate of growth of increasing our budget to 3.4% a year is not an extreme cut. it's not a cut at all.

it says we are not going to do with families and businesses around the world are doing facing economic circumstances we are dealing with right now. it says we will continue to grow. and allow the we nh outo federal budget the way families and businesses around this country are dealing with their budgets. i don't know that there are many small or large businesses in this country that are having budget meetings right now where they are deciding that they cannot live with 3.4% increases every year. most of them are looking at how they can bareback and deal with the economic circumstances they are facing. with that being said, there is another aspect of this. it has been said hundreds of times around here, as we debate the spending policies of the

government, that as the simpson- bowles commission said, we need to be sure we move into this carefully and that we need a little bit of time to stimulate the economy before we get to the true aggressive deficit reduction. it is true that simpson-bowles did do that. they had a couple of years of slow progress in 2 d $4 trillion plan that they put together. but we are two years down the road from simpson-bowles, and that is when simpson-bowles said we ought to be done with holding back and we ought to get around to getting to the process of controlling our deficit. even beyond simpson-bowles, i remember back, it has been for years now, going on 5, where we did the $800 bill in stimulus package on borrowed money at a time when many of us thought we ought to be controlling our spending then. the argument then was made, we

do need to do deficit reduction, but not now. now is when we need to spend harder and really push our way through this crisis with more stimulus spending. i disagreed with that then, but that was over four years ago. we did that, and every year since then, as we have increased the spending in the federal budget, the argument has been made, it's not time for restraint. it's time to keep spending. we've got to keep stimulating the economy. we've got to keep the growth of the federal government going, and there will be at day, next year, actually, probably the year after next, that we can get around to may be some serious deficit control. the bottom line here is, it is time. i will say in closing, this amendment is not extreme. all it does is say that we should control the rate of

growth of our government to 3.4%. we at least ought to be able to put that kind of restraint in place. >> if senator sessions agrees, obviously it will take some time, if we can have two minutes per member back and forth. >> let's try that. >> thank you, madam chair. i want to remind us the good news is, we are on a path on deficit reduction. we know we need to put in place over 2.4 trillion dollars. the question is, how do we get to the rest of it? 70% of it has come out of things that affect innovation for the future. it has come out of things like agricultural research, food safety research, things we need to do for the future around innovation and education. the question really is, how do

we get to the rest of deficit reduction in a way that continues to allow us to grow the economy. are you we are never going to get out of debt with more than 12 million people out of work. we had better be focused on economic growth. then the debate becomes, how do you do that? i would like to really reflect what business would do, because no business just cut its employees, just cut investments in the future, just cut innovation. if they want to be successful, they do a combination of both. right sizing, streamlining things. then if you really want to move, you invest in the next technology, that next innovation. i would argue that is what we are doing and that this is about whether or not we do this in a way that does grow the economy and put people back to work. >> thank you, madam chairman. i would strongly commend ranking

member sessions for this amendment. just a little bit of context, this is a federal government that has doubled spending in the last 12 years. a slight reduction in the rate of growth in spending is not going to be harmful to our economy. our friends on the other side of raise taxes by $1.80 trillion in the last three years, eliminating the huge additional tax increase that this budget contemplates and the elimination as contained in this amendment would be extremely conducive to growth, and finally, reaching a balanced 10 years from now, is hardly a draconian austerity program. a modest reduction in the rate of growth and spending, coupled with avoiding a massive tax increase and eventually getting some balance, that is extremely conducive to economic growth and will not be harmful to economic growth. you have other reasons for objecting to this, i am sure, but i strongly believe that this

kind of approach would be too much stronger economic growth and job creation. >> i think we are at the heart of some of our policy differences here. we probably can read different lessons from countries in europe who have taken more aggressive actions. i thought the cameron government in the u.k., when they acted, i thought they were bold. experience has shown that maybe they did move to quickly. what is interesting, all of the bipartisan plans, none of them had this goal of budget balance within 10 years. that is an arbitrary date. . if grand bargain never come back into fashion, i have been very

supportive of what senator crapo said earlier, that budget enforcement has to be part of anything. i have not been here as long as he has, but there does seem to be a bipartisan tendency to ignore actions taken in a runoff year. this is where a dozen have policy differences. as an investor in the private sector, you plan to stay ahead of the competition. i think countries do the same thing at a macro level and we just call it education, restructuring, and r&b. the house budget clearly puts us -- would have a federal government that with less than 5% of its revenues on education of its work force and infrastructure. that is not a business plan i would invest in or governor romney would have invested in

and i don't think it keeps us competitive in the world economy. >> is there further debate? >> over the break i went around wyoming doing listening sessions. i have done town meetings, but these are different. people come up to a microphone and tells me whatever is on their mind that would like me to know, that i heard directly. there was a lot of talk about all these different numbers that we throw around, which is what we talked about with these different baselines and stuff. that confuses them terribly. they cannot understand why we just don't take simple numbers and figure out that we are spending more than we are taking in. the biggest, it was, how come you cannot make real cuts? are you do is reduce the amount of increase. someone asked for $100 billion increase in you give them $50 billion increase, that is an increase. how can you do that?

instead of 5.3% growth, we would only do 3.4% representative. it is not a cut. those people in wyoming would be terribly disappointed in me to think that i would vote for something that allows an increase. i think this is reasonable, and i will vote for it, but it is not a decrease. it is a decrease in the increase in spending. surely we ought to be able to do that so that at some point we can actually get around to doing decreases in spending. then my people will be happy. i think this is a very reasonable amendment. >> any further debate? >> just a brief addition, i also have a listening sessions where i get asked roughly the same point. at some points i have to stand up and say 11,000 americans reach age 65 per day.

those costs are inevitably rising at a significant rate. we cannot assume there is no background increase in the cost of spending, whether it is critically needed investments to make us competitive, or the cost of the significant programs and the threats we face around the world. the background assumption that there is nothing drive and the cost of government, i sometimes try to push back on. >> the last word from senator sessions. >> i totally agree that nothing would be better for our economy and for the world and all are american people to say well, the united states is on a plan to actually balance the budget and end this reckless spending. i think it would be really great and helped unleash investment and job creation. people talk about how much we have already done in terms of

reducing spending, but this budget would eliminate one of the biggest parts of it, 60% of the budget control act by wiping out the sequester. that would increase spending dramatically. what we need to do is have a steady plan of growing spending, but at a slow path. we need to wrestle with how to save and strengthen medicare and social security and put them on a sound path. if we just refuse to do that, as this budget does, it does nothing to deal with any of those programs. then we will never be able to handle our situation barely. one more thing, i take very seriously the idea that you should not reduce spending or even the growth of spending at this point in time, but the congressional budget office in

their report in february has told us if we will reduce spending another $4 trillion over the next year, it would put us on the path basically to balance. there is option 3 for us to consider, growth would be 1.7% higher in the 10th year. remember, they warned us when the stimulus past, they warned us, yes you will get a short- term benefit, but by the time 10 years are over, this economy will have less growth by passing the stimulus than if you had not passed it. i believe we are already at. where the stimulus has passed, the benefits of past, and we are now feeling the interest rate. remember, we are on a path that interest payments in one year, 10 years from now would be $860 billion. our colleagues have talked a lot about infrastructure, roads, and bridges. our budget last year i believe

was $40 billion for roads and bridges. all kinds of investment of 860 billion. i say to my colleagues, i know this would require us to do some hard work. we would have to look at all are mandatory programs. if we did that and we pass this budget, there is no doubt in my mind if we stood together the american people would back us, they would support us, they would say hallelujah, even if we had to tell them that some of the things we would like to do, we are not able to do. i urge my colleagues to take this opportunity to put the country on a sound financial path. >> i thank senator sessions. we will have a lot of time to discuss the approach we have put forward in a credible, solid manner to get our country back

on track. we will hold that debate and go to the next amendment. >> thank you. i have an amendment that would simply call for a deficit neutral budget fund that allows for the implementation of piece of legislation that senator warner introduced after the last election. it has to do with making sure that every american, a republican, democrat, has access to the polls. this is not a mandatory process towards dealing with registration and elections and access to polls. this is a competitive grant program, relatively modest in size in proportion to the scale of the problem that was encountered all over our country after the last elections. the acronym of the law that we introduced was fair, accurate,

secure, and timely elections. it is simply a way to carry out our constitutional responsibility in terms of making sure that federal elections are conducted inappropriate way. there is a new bipartisan commission on voting led by top lawyers that are looking at this. in my view, access is not a partisan issue, it is the foundation of our republic, and i would urge support for this modest, deficit neutral effort to ensure there are resources to take a serious look at incentivizing states voluntarily to deal with are voting issues in the last election. >> center stagliano has been asked to be added as a co- sponsor. is there further debate echo >> i have a question for the author of the amendment. it the way this is -- i see some

talking points but my question is -- the use of the deficit neutral reserve fund creates certainly the possibility that there could be a new and additional tax increase to pay for some spending that would arise from the gold. is that your understanding echo but my intention was that this would be offset not for revenue increase. >> but it does not require that. tax increase would be one way to make revenue neutral. >> that would not be something i would do but it would be technically possible. >> i certainly am open to this suggestion. my basic view is that this committee ought not to be in effect authorizing more spending for another program

that normally comes up in the judiciary committee, of which i am a member. boeing has always been a responsibility of states. we find it a great deal of voter improvements after the dramatic 2000 election. i am not inclined to think at a time when our budget is not balanced and we are spending more than we could, we ought to mandate or authorize more spending that has not gone through the appropriate authorizing committee. >> i want to thank you for offering this amendment. the right to vote is a fundamental right in america that everyone should enjoy and we should make sure that the registration process is transparent and welcoming and i really appreciate your great

work on this and efforts that you are doing. i believe this can help improve the process and i look forward to working with you on it and ask my colleagues to support it when we vote in a few hours. is there any further debate on this amendment? if not, we will turn to the next member on your side. >> thank you, madam chair. i would like to offer a pretty simple amendment that builds on senator sessions amendment that would require us balancing the budget after the 10th year. it does provide for a waiver or appeal of that point of order on a vote of 3/5 of members. from my standpoint, picking up from senator enzi's point, the

american people believe we should be balancing the budget before the 10th year. they expect us to balance the budget immediately. we do have some very significant promises we have made to seniors that we want to do everything we can to honor those promises, but that also directs us to doing real reforms of those programs so we can save them for future generations. that is part of the. we have to make. by balancing the budget, i truly believe having come from the private sector, the level of uncertainty that washington is creating for general economy is huge. that really is hampering economic activity. i think having a budget that puts us on a glide path toward balance would improve that, at increase the certainty, reduce

the level of uncertainty and increased confidence. you really want to balance the budget and bring more revenue -- and i have to make a defense. i think folks on our side want everybody to pay their fair share. i think we also agree that a balanced approach to deficit reduction. we have different ideas on how that occurs, but let me make a defense on economic growth toward increased revenue in the federal government. from 2009 to 2012, even with the meager economic growth we have experienced, revenue has increased by 340 four billion dollars per year. if we just return to normal economy like we had in 2007 where revenue generation was 18.5%, that would increase revenue per year by $435 billion. again, per year. the chairman's mark is estimated to raise revenue, closing

loopholes and increasing taxes, by about $97 billion per year. increased revenue for the year 2014 by $41 billion. economic growth is 10-20 times more effective in increasing tax rates. if you want further proof, and no the vilified bush tax cuts in 2003, we started with revenue of $1.70 trillion. within four years, federal revenue had grown by $780 billion. that was with the tax cut. everything we should be doing in washington to be targeting and encouraging economic growth. that is how we get more revenue. that is how we achieve that balance riposte to deficit reduction. balanced -- balanced approach. as center sessions proposed in his amendment, and putting the

discipline of a budget point of order to provide the confidence for economic growth will help us balance the budget. i certainly hope that my fellow senators will support this very simple amendment. >> we will go back and forth with 2 minutes on each side. our side does understand the need to deal with debt and deficit. we are very serious about that. but we are also very serious about getting our economy back on track and creating jobs, which is the number one goal in this country today. our budget does a very good job of dealing with both of those very important goals. our budget will exceed the deficit go reduction of four trillion dollars. we do it in a responsible way that does not upset the economy at a very fragile time. that is a very important that we are on and we are very committed

to staying on that path. i know we'll have a debate about the rise in budget and the intent to get to 0 on whether it is real or not, and we will all be at all to talk about that in the coming weeks and months. the fact is that this economy is fragile. we are working hard to do with their debt and deficit. that is part of it. but we also need to make sure we create jobs and improve our economy so it can have a strong future. to the point of order being offered in this amendment, i think we are all tired of the management by crisis that we have been involved in. we have not been able to have the path where we have a budget that is brought forward in the senate and house and the conclusion that is reached by congress. we create another crisis we have to live for. it will be an insufficient

enforcement process and another pathway to just putting us back on a crisis mode. i would strongly oppose this amendment and just encourage all of us to get back to the order that we are doing. we are working very hard on our side to get a budget out and move toward a process that gets us to an agreement at the end of the day. i don't think we should be throwing in amendments that just create more chaos in the future. i encourage all of my committee members to oppose it. with that, we will do a debate back and forth for a couple of minutes. senator crapo, you wanted to speak, and then senator warner. >> i will be brief. i just want to make the point that i don't think these kind of amendments are making things more complex. we really do need to set the parameters for our budgeting process. i don't have the numbers on the tip of my tongue, but we have grown discretionary spending in

the last five years by over 25%, if i remember correctly. is a significant amount of growth. just to say that we are going to get on a path is not harmful, it is going to be helpful to the economy. we have achieved $2.40 trillion in savings. something that is an inflated number. we have not achieved that yet. that is a projected number of the next decade of what we have put into place, if we don't break the budget again and again. we have already broken the budget control act and some particulars three or four times since we passed it. i have no high level of confidence that we are going to necessarily achieve that $2.40 trillion number or if it is even accurate number. my point is, we've got to get around to putting some hard controls in place and make sure

that the savings that we think we have in place are achieved, and make sure that we get to the point of reducing the deficit rather than continuing to say that the economy is fragile and cannot do anything now. >> i agree with senator johnson and i would echo center crapo's. that it will not only lead to growth but to job creation. i think the debate that has been going on for some time has put out markers that said its goal ought to be debt to gdp of about 70% and the deficit ought to be below 3%. on those markers, this budget meet those goals. i am concerned, and just one other comment, i would agree we

are on an unsustainable spending path as well. we are also on an unsustainable revenue passed in the sense that just as we made mistakes over the last 10 years in starting new spending programs, we made unsustainable revenue cuts. this is a structural budget deficit. i don't think we have hit those marks on either side. i do find -- i agree with senator johnson's general direction but i don't agree that there is anything magic about a 10-year goal. i think that 3% on an annual basis deficit, debt to gdp at 70 or below had been the goals that a lot of us have been working on for a number of years. this budget heads in that direction and putting some like this in place is not the

appropriate path. >> is there further debate on this amendment? >> i would like to support that amendment very strongly. it does not do anything to the budget committee, but it encourages us to pass a budget to balance. if we can justify not balancing, and we just simply have to gather 60 votes in the senate instead of 50. that is a good incentive for us and puts us on the right path. i know people say we are on a budget and i believe the language we just heard, we believe -- the democrats believe in serious, substantial spending control plans, and we want to be -- we are on an unsustainable path. what i have to tell you is that this budget eviscerates 60% of the budget control act agreement we just made less than two years

ago. we agreed to control our spending $2.10 trillion over 10 years when we were spending $49 trillion, we were planning to spend that much, and reduce the growth a little bit. and here we are with this budget, supposed to be a budget control spending, it busts the budget on numbers we had under the budget control act, increasing spending. it only reduces deficits of the current path we are on by about $300 billion. maybe four. that is what we are talking about. i think it is clear that we need to create some system that generates some discipline in our process. the question is, do you believe we should have a balanced budget? i certainly believe we can do it with a 3.4% growth each year.

this budget budget this amendment does not mandate it, but makes us have as an incentive and a discipline of goal of writing a budget we send to our colleagues that actually balances. it is important. it is not a little amendment. i urge you to support it. >> senators sanders. >> i apologize for being a little bit late. i am assuming that the budget is similar to the right and budget, maybe with a little more extremes. -- to the orion budget -- budget that ends medicare as we know it. somebody who is 67 years of age dealing with cancer would be given a check and try to find a position to take care of her, or go to the hospital. what does this do to medicare, medicaid, and education? >> that response. i think that is a false charge being drawn about.

ryan's medicare reform preserves medicare for those who want to keep it. the other. i would make in terms of the glide path of 3.4% compound growth rate and spending exceeds the percentage, if you add inflation plus population growth. you can still balance the budget by growing spending at a level that exceeds inflation plus population growth. that is a reasonable way if you are going to look at -- you have to allow for inflation. >> how many children does this throw off of medicaid? the concept in terms of reducing spending in medicaid -- >> it would manage it far more effectively -- >> can you tell me how many children suffer the ignominy

millions of children would be thrown off of health insurance that go -- health-insurance? medicaid is a fairly efficient health care program. what about headstart and child care? >> we are going to try to have a controlled the debate here. i know it is difficult. >> thank you, madam chair. i will be very brief. just on this point, with respect to medicare, having talked about with my friend from wisconsin. i think all senators know i feel very strongly about getting a bipartisan approach on medicare. just so we are clear on the history, the paper that was put together in december 2011 was very different than the budget resolution which came from the chair and the house, congressman ryan, just a few months later,

and i voted against it. we cannot call it yet a bipartisan agreement if the most vulnerable, those on medicaid, really are in effect going to face the kind of suffering that you would see with medicaid block grants. the second major change was the assistance for low-income seniors that was in the paper in 2011 was very different than what was then the ryan budget in the spring. that was another big factor in my voting against it. the paper did not raise the age of eligibility, it protected the affordable care act. i just want my colleagues to know that i continue to be very interested in a bipartisan approach in medicare, but the paper that was put together in december 2011 did not block grants medicate, had a much more generous credit assistance for the low income people.

in short, it protected the medicare guaranteed. this very explicit approach that protect the most vulnerable. i just want that understood because i suspect we will be coming back to medicare in the course of the morning. >> we do have to boats at 11:25. another republicans have lunch that you need to go to. with the indulgence of the committee, if we could get in two war amendments before the vote -- to more amendments before the vote. >> it allows us to write the budget. it allows us to say how we do it. just has to be balanced and does not direct cuts on any program. >> we will have a lot more discussion on what the word balance means. senator sanders. >> mine in a slightly different

than senator johnson's. it takes a slightly different approach. it does what i think the american people want us to do, and that is deal with deficit reduction, but deal with it in a way that is fair. what is fair is to understand that right now, corporate profits are at an all-time high. large corporations are doing phenomenally well, while corporate income tax revenue as a percentage of gdp is near a record low. that is a fact. corporations are making huge amounts of money, and yet what they are paying in income tax, about 12% of their profits is the lowest it has been since 1972. furthermore, not a whole lot of people know this, one out of four profitable corporations pay

zero taxes. so the debate that senator johnson and i have about how you do deficit reduction, what he wants to do is cut, and i believe some of those cuts would be absolutely devastating. what is the poorest way to get it? there are a lot of ways you can get revenue. we could raise taxes on the middle-class working families. i don't think that is a good idea. those people are already hurting. according to the government accountability office, about one out of four large profitable corporations pay nothing in federal income tax. that we give you some examples. the bank of america, citigroup, wells fargo, and other large financial institutions needed a bailout, they came to the u.s.

congress. they got $750 billion. but when we ask them to help us with deficit reduction, senator johnson, amazingly enough they are no longer great lovers of america. they forgot the people that bailed them out. and give you a few examples of what is going on in terms of loopholes. let me give you some explicit examples. in 2010, bank of america set up more than 200 subsidiaries in the cayman islands, which has a corporate tax rate of zero, to avoid paying u.s. taxes. it worked. not only did bank of america pay nothing in federal income taxes, but they received a rebate from the irs worth $1.90 billion that year. how is that eco profitable corporation pays nothing in federal taxes, receives as a rebate $1.90 billion. citigroup, another bank bailed out by the taxpayers of america, has paid no federal income taxes

for the last four years after establishing 25 subsidiaries in offshore tax havens and receiving more than $2.50 trillion in total financial assistance from the fed and the treasury department. wells fargo, exxonmobil, chevron, a general election, verizon, honeywell, you name it. the big story in the wall street journal, these guys are putting their money in the cayman islands, bermuda, other tax havens. i had the radical idea that if we deal with deficit reduction, maybe we don't cut social security and benefits to disabled veterans and medicare and medicaid and education. maybe we plug these loopholes and ask these guys to start saying -- start paying their fair share. what we do is create a deficit reduction reserve fund to promote corporate tax fairness,

acknowledged this problem, and try to deal with it. madam chair, that is my amendment. >> is there further debate customer >> you might be surprised at how much we actually agree. you missed my opening statement. we all want everyone to pay their fair share. we also want more revenue. way you get more revenue is by growing the economy. i would love to wipe out the current tax code and start over with a clean piece of paper with two basic principles. raise the revenue we need, and do no economic horroharm. >> here is a big difference. i come from the business world. i don't see what good it does to be demonizing individuals that are working extremely hard.

small, medium, even large corporations to provide products and services we all value. it is not easy to conceive of, produce a product or provide a service at a cost that is less than you can sell to the open public. that is a hard thing to do. that is why so many businesses fail. when we demonize those individuals that are working hard -- >> where did i demonize? >> the point being, the way we raise revenue through economic growth. we increase federal revenue by $344 billion per year.

added up over 10 years. that is how you gain revenue, by celebrating success, not demonizing it. not having a chip on your shoulder that you people doing some kind of evil thing. they are producing products and services we all value. that is what made this country great. >> i think this makes a great political statement, but it is a little short on how it would be done. i know we don't get into the details of how things are done. that is what we have a finance committee that worked on these sorts of things. the last time that congress dabbled in trying to hit the rich was the alternative minimum tax. everybody in the country is beginning to -- was beginning to have a problem with the alternative minimum tax, so we had to do some changes there.

when we try to pick on a specific thing, and this sounds like it needs picking on, you've got to be very careful on how you do it. have unintended consequences from other companies, particularly start up companies that might be having a problem, that have nothing to do with the cayman islands. i not only thing that every corporation ought to pay a tax, i think every person ought to pay a tax. every person gets the benefit from something in the united states. it might be just a dime, but it ought to be something. >> we know there are limitations to what this bill does. we don't get into all the details. it is not a political issue. use the issue of sales. i don't think it is fair that bank of america, that was bailed

out by the taxpayers of this country, that makes huge amount of profit, has nothing invested. i would not mind starting from zero in writing. that is not what we are doing. when you talk about a desire for more revenue, this is a reasonable way to go. i think most americans do. the choice we are facing is, some of the -- so many guys want to cut, cut, cut, and hurt working families. in you have some of the largest financial institutions in the world paying nothing in taxes, being quite unpatriotic. this is not demonizing anybody. this is saying -- i am on the veterans committee. we have young men and women who have lost their arms and legs defending america. you have these guys putting their money in the cayman islands, not paying any taxes, and having folks that we've got to cut back on disabled vets.

that is what the issue is about. i would hope again have support to say no, it is wrong. multinational corporations pay no taxes, stashing their money in the cayman islands. >> would there be any objection to putting in here profitable corporations to receive the bailout? we should have had more restrictions on those folks at the time we did that. >> if i amended it, would you vote for it? your saying -- if you are prepared to support it, i will make that a minute. x. i am prepared to support it. >> madam chair, i ask that the minute it change to only apply to wall street firms that were bailed out by the taxpayers of the united states. >> what i would suggest is that during the break, you work out language and then offer it up

through an amendment. >> we will do that. i withdraw the amendment at this time. >> madam chairman, can i address this amendment? >> you could, we want to get another amendment in before the vote that is going to be called a few minutes. >> i will be very quick. >> i think senator enzi was next. >> he just wants to make the point. >> i think what this comes down to, the senator from vermont would acknowledge that we have an income tax, but in some cases he objects to the way we define income. what he would consider income does not make certain income subject to tax on that income. this goes to the heart of the need to do corporate tax reform. i think there is broad consensus on both sides of the aisle that we need to do corporate tax reform.

where we might disagree, i think the consensus includes the notion that it should be revenue neutral so we don't put our businesses and workers at a further competitive disadvantage to the one they already have. i would suggest that if this were an effort to have a more sensible corporate tax code, would probably have reduced thereby put our workers and business at a further competitive disadvantage. >> i will allow you to work on your own amendment. >> thank you, madam chairman. i have an amendment that i have been working on for a long time. it kind of culminated with the highway bill. when we did the highway bill, i proposed that we do what simpson-bowles suggested, which was raised the gas tax.

i did not have as nearly as big a gas tax increase is what they talked about in their proposal, which was 5 cents per year for three years. the highway bill would be totally funded out of user fees, which is what i thought we were supposed to do. i was told that we would not have the vote on those because we do not raise taxes in an election year, and we did not have a vote on that. that bill has a tax increase in it. it has a huge tax increase. we want to make sure that private pension funds are protected and the pension benefit guaranty corp. needs the revenue so that if a business goes out of business and they promise people a pension, they will get at least 60% of what they were promised. so we raised that tax, but it does not go into the pension. technically goes into the pension benefit guaranty corp. just like the money that goes

into social security and everything else. but the revenue, the important part, went to highways, 14 years, to build two years' worth of highways. i don't think that is the kind of budget and that we want to do. i wanted to reinstitute the pay- go where the revenues have to match up with these vintage we are making. in the out years, you still don't have to match up, but in the first year, we ought to lease seven offset that takes care of the first year's worth of expenditures. that is all that this does. it is just a good accounting principle that we ought to have when talking about revenues. we cannot spend money we are not going to get 14 years. really don't agree with what is in the budget amendment after the first year anyway. so we are kind of lying about how we are going to pay for different things, and just

adding it to the deficit rather than actually doing it. >> is there further debate? >> madam chair, senator enzi is reinstating the first year pay- protest that existed when we first balance the budget. -- pay-go proposal that existed when we first balanced the budget. >> i will take a few minutes to review it while we are doing the votes and have a chance to chat with you between now and then. is there anybody else that we like to comment on this at this time? >> i just want to make sure i am understanding that the first year, used as an example the pension fund, and i share a concern about the pension fund. we have done a lot of looking at help -- various health cuts

as we have looked at various things. are you suggesting that if there was a reduction or a change in a payment on health care, it would have to go back into health? i am not sure exactly what you are suggesting. >> this just applies to when we are finding offsets to do primarily new programs or new projects. the offset has to have enough revenue in the first year to cover the expenditure in that first year. >> you are not looking at the top of forgoes but more the amount of money. >> right. >> there will be two votes that will be called shortly. i would really like to get two more members then that we can

put in to vote on after lunch. if we could do those now, i think that would be great. then we will not have to come back between votes. i am going to move to my side to offer another amendment. >> thank you, madam chair. this is an amendment that provides a deficit neutral reserve on from improving federal forest management. essentially we have those of us who have a lot of concern about second growth forest that are wonderful for -- essentially the forest fires of last summer reinforced this. there is a potential for legislation that might help address work force management and this creates a reserve fund for that purpose. >> is there further debate?

that we just said thank you for offering this amendment. as someone who shares your concern about the forest service management, the ability to have the funds they need, it is often very challenging when we have a very severe forest fire here and we need to make sure that we have adequate support for that. i hope our colleagues will support this amendment. if there is no further debate from either side, we will put that in the stack to vote on after the luncheon. >> i believe senator enzi is next. >> i have an amendment where i am trying to encourage everybody to see that when we do tax reform that it is done in a bipartisan way. i have been working with the senators, and the tax code is extremely complicated. i think we have all figured that

out by this time. it is bigger than the bible, and there are always intricacies in there, including loopholes, tax expenditures, subsidies. when we did then, we called them incentives, but they are all very complicated and interconnected. we not only had the corporate tax, but we had the individual tax. if your an individual running a business or a partnership running a business or a small business corporation, you get taxed under the individual code rather than a corporate code. we need to do both of those at the same time if we are going to be fair to everybody. it is going to take more than a limited time of debate and a limited number of amendments, and that is what would happen under reconciliation. i hope we will not do it under reconciliation. this is an amendment that would stop it from being done under

reconciliation, and hopefully stop creating separate crises that can crescendo in the debate up to a certain point, which would be when we have the reconciliation debate. it would stop the deal making in start legislating. we ought to get started on that right away because it is so complicated. several of us have been involved in that for a long time and i just don't see it fitting in with a reconciliation package. so that is what this amendment does. >> i would oppose this amendment and i asked my colleagues to oppose it. we have put together a very thoughtful, important package to reduce our deficit in a responsible way, similar to the simpson-bowles, a gang of six, the manager rivlin, making sure we have a balanced package of both revenue and spending cuts. is cleared the one who has watched congress over the last years knows that we are pretty good at cutting funds, but not

good at having a balanced package in terms of raising the funds we need to make sure the american public is aware of how we are balancing our package in a fair way. the cuts that we see go right after the middle class. we have seen that time and time again. we want to make sure that everyone in america, the wealthy included, participate in dealing with the budget deficit challahs that we have in front of us. -- the budget deficit that we have in front of us. i would oppose this amendment. has the vote been called? we have time for further debate and we will go back and forth. who on this side wants to be recognized? >> i support the amendment, but i just learned to make the point, you reference the fact that simpson-bowles and the gang

of six also had an approach to achieving revenue objective in their plans, but the key is that that revenue objective was part of a bigger package that had been negotiated, a package that is not included in this budget. as a matter of fact, the only recommendation -- reconciliation in the budget is this one, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> is also not in the form or in the structure that many of us who were partners of the negotiations worked out. my point is, what this does is, it puts one piece of the negotiations that we need to achieve to have a grand bargain come together in a reconciliation instruction, but

leaves the other ones out. similarly, with regard to this tax reform, that simply addresses the revenue-raising portion of it. does not address the reform of the tax code. there is much more that needs to be done here. if we are going to move into the revenue component, the grand bargain needs to come together. what the budget does is throw a huge wet blanket on the ability of republicans and democrats in the senate to come together and put together a kind of approach that we need to resolve our fiscal crisis. >> a number of us on this committee are also on the finance committee, and i work on tax reform and hoping for that grand bargain in every area. i guess i view this a little different in terms of its language. the language does not say tax reform.

i agree that if we were trying to truly look at everything in tax reform, reconciliation is tough to do because it is just about numbers. in this case, what we are saying is that to deal with deficit reduction, we need to look at spending in the tax code, making sure that those at the top art doing their fair share, as well as spending reductions that hit the middle class more. we can do our revenue peace and still do tax reform, which is a broader set of issues on reforms that go to economic competitiveness globally in a whole range of things. i think it is tough to look at medicare or social security in the context of reconciliation, again because it is policy, as we found in trying to do health reform. it is tough to do that in terms of the context of just a numbers

debate. there are two pieces that are very important. one is when we are talking about spending, we have a lot of spending and a tax code that does not make sense anymore. in terms of domestic spending, and then we need to have a broader debate on tax reform and the grand bargain that has to be done by definition outside of reconciliation. >> is there further debate? >> i would just like to suggest, i think my democratic colleagues have many perfectly sincere reasons for supporting the budget product that they have here, but i really don't see how any similarity to bowles-simpson scobee among those reasons. bowles-simpson explicitly calls for profound reform of the big entitlement programs. this budget resolution clearly does not