stands in adjournment until noon on mo

senator: voice vote unless there is an objection. those in favor say aye. opposed. accepted. senator staben now's will be next and changed her amendment and ask that to be next. senator sanders: are you waiting? senator stabenow: we made a small change. if you would like to -- senator: small change. see if we can comply with that.

long-term spending. senator: i hope we have that continued bipartisan spirit that information is a good thing if we are going to solve a problem we have to define it properly and we have it. my amendment is pretty simple. we've got the chart up on the big screen again that the definition of this problem. all these promises to the baby boom generation, we see the exploding deficit and asking c.b.o. when they submit their report a percentage of g.d.p., which we added just report the amount of dollar over the next 30 years. senator: if i could complyment him.

senator: any objection to a voice vote. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the amount is passed. our next is warner amendment on i.r.s. notification. senator warner: they need to know if they are victims of identity theft and hope they move on this administratively and have not moved on it to date. senator: i hope we can voice vote this unanimous consent. senator: give the i.r.s. to share information with someone who has been a victim of the identity theft. senator: it interprets the regulations that they cannot

tell that victim that their identity. senator: i haven't been a victim myself. i think we should improve the bill. i do have some sort of program and i did work through it. but it can be improved. it's a dangerous problematic thing if it gets worse and worse. senator: any objection to voice voting this? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. . the amendment passes. next one is the wicker c.b.o. score. senator wicker: first of all. in order not to run afoul of the long-standing requirements of the committee, i delete from my amendment, the words or ranking

member, so that the chairman of the senate or house budget committee may make this request. but basically this is along the lines of the white house and johnson amendments, providing as much information as we can about the outyear impact of major spending legislation. ensens senator enzi: all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. it passes.

next one then is senator baldwin amendment. senator baldwin: i would like to modify my amendments to strike the ranking member and keep to the long tradition of the committee until both the house and the senate. but as a reminder to all this is the amendment -- that has the joint committee on taxation. provide a supplemental estimate that evaluates the distributional effect of revenue changes across income categories and another useful piece of information for us to have as we evaluate tax policy. and i urge a voice vote.

senator enzi: any opposition? seeing none, those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. ? senator: mr. chairman? i would thank you for dropping the nontraditional approach in terms of who can ask for it but i hope we will have the opportunity to discuss that with them. they don't have the availability to do it now and hopefully we can do it forward.

senator: we have a 30-year score and the 10-year score guides us but the 30-year would help us know whether we are using gimmicks. second 20 and 20, 20, you are losing money. i hope this could be approved. senator enzi: opposition? seeing none. ready to vote. do this by voice vote. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. that amendment is adopted. next one is student loans. senator: i think we can all recognize that student debt is having a huge impact on the

sense of opportunity among our children. and that this prescribes no particular solution, but whether it's lower interest rates, whether it's enhancing the grants under the pell grants or core program improving the stafford loans whatever it is that a bipartisan group can come together for, this provides the vested mute tall fund to recognize that this is a significant problem facing america and we should work to try to address. senator enzi: i think we are all concerned about the cost of college and the student loan debt and i know that the average graduating senior owes $33,000 in student loan debt. and that's eclipsed credit card debt at the present time. but the one reason the chairman's mark contains changes is because it's due up for a

re-authorization and that should be an appropriate vehicle for any specific reforms who want to reduce the cost of college and need for student borrowing. i look forward to working with the committee to make sure we get the higher education act re-authorized before it's out of date and join the list of 260 that aren't. i urge my colleagues to vote no. is there a request for a roll call? the clerk will call the roll. the clerk: mr. grassley no. mr. sessions no. mr. crapo no. mr. portman, no. mr. toomey, no. mr. johnson no. mr. wicker, no. mr. corker, no.

mr. perdue no. mr. sanders, aye. mr. wyden, aye. mr. warner aye. mr. merkley aye. mr. king aye. mr. chairman, the yeas are 11 and the nays are 11. senator enzi: repeat those numbers. the clerk: the yeas are 11 and the nays are 11. senator: this amendment simply creates a spending night tral reserve fund aimed at subbing the regular appropriation process. the last thing we need right now is a rogue regulator out there without any oversight of congress and that's the intent of this amendment.

thank you. senator enzi: opposition? senator: the c.f.p.b. are funded to insulate from the type of influence that would deeply damage its regulatory role but independent audit monitored by the inspector general and rulemaking requirements, required testimony before the banking committee and indeed the ability of the oversight council to overturn the regulations. we need to protect this group that has done a fabulous job of defending consumers. senator enzi: i urge my colleagues to vote yes. ask for a roll call vote. . the clerk: mr. grassley aye. mr. sessions.

mr. graham. mr. toomey, mr. johnson, ms. ayotte. mr. wicker. mr. perdue, mr. sanders no. ms. murray, no. mr. wyden. ms. stabenow, mr. whitehouse. mr. kane, mr. king. mr. chairman. senator enzi: yes. the clerk: the yeas are 12 and the nays are 10. senator enzi: the amendment has failed. the next one -- the amendment is passed. the amendment is passed. sorry. next one is the kaine amendment. senator: this is an amendment to promote c.t.e. education

co-sponsored by senators baldwin and portman. senator enzi: any opposition, seeing none. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. . it is passed. next the ayotte amendment and there is a democrat side-by-side on this one. has the side-by-side been distributed? senator: can i move my vote after. we are awaiting a ruling by the parliamentarian. can i move my vote until the end?

senator enzi: there is a side-by-side which has been handed out already. two minutes of debate each side? senator: my amendment creates a neutral deficit reserve fund to america's treasures and grow our rural economies in a balanced way. the side-by-side ties the well-being of rural economist and our spectacular treasures we reveer to unsustaining logging levels and hopefully look at the numbers here because the

programs involved already get a significant amount of their funding from logging. this amendment would jack up that logging level far beyond what is sustainable and so this is, in effect -- my amendment builds on the balanced approach that we have had. helping rural aeconomies versus chipping again at the environmental laws that are going to harm our treasures and aren't sustainable. when they aren't sustainable, they are going to hurt rural economies. senator enzi: well, the side-by-side require there be some things done to the health of the national foffers. there are two ways i ought to approach this. we required them not to log and

we paid them for the taxes that we would have logged. for my coal mines, i ought to do a secure rural schools for coal mines, but i won't. we need to keep utilizing the stewardship of what we have been given. i know that local and rural economies used to depend on robust timber industry. and we can make changes to enable that industry to thrive and improve and increase timber sales and reduce the severity of wildfires. so my side-by-side precludes repeated extensions of the secure rural school paid for by tax increases. senator: colleagues, these programs already generate a significant amount of money from logging. the whole point of legislative

efforts in the west and other heavily-logged areas is to increase that logging level in a sustainable way. what this amendment does is go beyond that and in effect forces us to raise logging levels many times beyond what is sustainable. i think we'll regret that. rural economies will not get the economic opportunities and have been mislead too often in the past and will see our environmental treasures suffer. senator: mr. chairman? i intend to vote for both of these amendments. as you have indicated, mr. chairman senator wyden and i have been working together on a solution for the s.g.r. and the wildfire problems that we face in the west and his amendment will be helpful in helping us

to's chief a resolution of those issues. i agree with the chairman, we need to increase our timber production in the west and we have unreasonably depressed it. so i support the chairman's approach to focus on that as well. i will be voting for both of the amendments. senator enzi: roll call vote on the wyden amendment. mr. blum: -- senator enzi: we'll vote on yours first and can vote on how they want. i take senator crapo's approach.

clerk will call the roll. [roll call] senator enzi: anyone wishing to change their vote? seeing none, please report the vote. the clerk: mr. chairman, the yeas are 18, the nays are 4. senator enzi: we have a vote on the side-by-side and i request a roll call vote.

[roll call vote] the clerk: the yeas are 12 and the nays are 10. senator enzi: that one has been adopted also. next is the sessions amendment on welfare. i'm not sure if there's a side-by-side.

senator: we are spending an amount on welfare and need fundamental reform and do good things for poor people and help them with the $1 trillion we are spending $750 billion on these means tested programs. it does include medicaid but medicaid is designed for low-income people, real people in real poverty. i think we need to help those people come out of that situation, come into a centralized office where the leaders know all the funds they are getting and help them craft a future including job training. senator enzi: opposition? senator: this says to help struggling americans on the road to financial independence. i'm assuming that means child care, minimum wage. equal pay.

this fund could be used for what we believe -- senator sessions: we need to create subsidy finance committee subsidies of all kinds and i think we can do a lot better if we do it right. but this wouldn't mandate anything but needs legislation to accomplish it. senator sanders: we have a side-by-side which includes the nobel aims, but makes it clear when so many people are struggling, that we do not cut benefits to some of the most vulnerable people in this country. what senator sessions has lumped together is welfare programs

includes the earned income tax credit, supplement temporary s.s.i., meals on wheels and many other programs and i for one at a time when so many people are struggling do not want to see the programs cut. do we want more job training? yes. do we want to cut programs to the most vulnerable americans i don't believe so. senator: there will be no cuts to benefits of low-income americans. senator: the intent is that general funding is not cut. senator: no cuts in benefits to low-income americans which goes beyond that. i would say his amendment doesn't fulfill his goals i would think and urge support for mine.

senator enzi: any additional comments? seeing none. the vote would be first on the sessions amendment. i assume we want roll call votes on both of these. the clerk will call roll on the sessions amendment. [roll call vote] the clerk: the yeas are 15, the nays are 8.

senator enzi: that amendment has been adopted. call up the substitute -- side-by side. senator sanders: increase sufficiency in social welfare programs and protection from benefit cuts. this is the same amendment as senator sessions amendment, but in understanding that they are very important programs such as the earned income tax credit s.s.i. early detection meals on wheels and many, many other programs. i do not want to see are those programs cut. yes, of course we can make changes, but it's important that we do not in these difficult times cut programs to the most vulnerable people in this country. senator: i understand what senator sanders is suggesting

but as so often the case, i think it's an excessive commitment to the status quo. we need to consider that these programs should be consolidated and others increased. and if we do that in a creative way, i believe we could improve benefits for poor people in america without any doubt. and i do think that his language constricts the reform we need to do and therefore, i think it's part of the problem and i would ask my colleagues to vote no. senator enzi: roll call expected then. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call vote]

ate ate thr strengthens our civilian work force focused on military readiness and national security. i amended my amendment to make it a deficit neutral so it can

address spending and revenue. it was originally d.o.d. but goes across the civilian work force. thank you. senator enzi: that's been modified then. the side-by-side. senator: first of all, i'm not asking to vote against the ayotte amendment but i'm offering something i believe is a much stronger commitment to protecting our military readiness at a time of tremendous threat. senator stabenow: i think we have to have priorities and determine where revenue is coming from so it's not just a typical deficit reserve fund but we are identifying the ways we are going to strengthen our civilian work force. so i am tying that to an amendment, provision of mine

that will prevent companies from getting tax benefits and ending tax loopholes for inversions. we tried to do something that if you pick up and move to another country that taxpayers don't have to pay for the move or workers don't have to pay for the move. at minimum, we ought to be doing that, but there are so many ways in which i think the public is offended. we are all offended that the tax code is allowing loopholes. let's close those and put that money to good use and i would suggest protecting our military readiness by strengthening our civilian work force would be pretty good use of those dollars. i'm going to vote for both of these, but if we want to be serious about it, i would urge support for my amendment. senator enzi: the ayotte amendment discusses the need for support for the work force.

pt amendment would make the u.s. already uncompetitive make the effective tax rate even higher and we have the tax reform process in the works and that would be the appropriate place to do the tax reform and does not require the america. i would recommend my colleagues vote no on the side-by-side and vote yes on the ayotte amendment. senator stabenow: we certainly, members of the finance committee, but i can't imagine a loophole that continue that businesses pick up and move and taxpayers pay for the moving expenses. we ought to come together on closing that one. senator enzi: first vote is on the ayotte amendment and the clerk will call the roll. [roll call vote. ]

the clerk: the yeas are 22 and nays are zero. senator enzi: ayotte amendment is passed. clerk will call the roll. [roll call vote]

senator stabenow: the change is being viewed as a new amendment. i'm happy to proceed but there is a concern, i can bring it up. mr. chairman, it's up to you. i'm happy to proceed. senator enzi: we will put it off, then. that concludes that round of votes. and ready to begin amendments

again. i don't have any recap on how many more amendments there are. anybody wants to volunteer that, that would be helpful to know how much longer we're going. do you have any idea on your side? sand sand senator: mr. chairman, in armed services and intelligence committee so far this year, we have heard powerful and very convincing testimony from our military forces across the board and also from the intelligence

community about the dangers of sequester. the dangers are in readiness. the dangers are in modernization. we actually had direct testimony that if the sequester is imposed this year, american lives will be put at risk. decline in intelligence capability decline in recon aceance capability and modernization. it will be a catastrophe in defense. in nondefense, in the intelligence community, but also people, research and development, the n.i.h., head start, education, job training, national parks, housing, the homeless senior services, this idea of sequester was designed to be stupid and it is and it was designed to provoke us to find a better solution. so i'm offering a deficit-neutral reserve fund to

do just that. i know that the chairman has a provision in the mark on page 48, section 302 which deals with this. my amendment clarifies that somewhat to make it clear that we need to resolve the sequester issue on both sides. there are many areas where there can be cuts as well as receipts or revenues. so it is an attempt to have a place holder for legislation for us to work on in order to deal with the problem of sequester. these solutions won't be easy but i think we have to remind ourselves that the sequester impacts are very real whether it's head start slots or lack of intelligence in one of the most

intense and dangerous times of international relations certainly in our recent history. so that's the purpose of the amendment. i urge its support. senator enzi: probably one of the best to talk on this would be senator ayotte, who worked diligently to get an provision that's already in the budget resolution that would be duplicative of this because we already included it, because she was working on these same programs with a number of people including senator kaine and senator king. the budget allows for defense and nondefense and allows for any offsets. so i think we have already accomplished what's in this amendment. senator: one of my concerns with the provision in the mark is the use of the word or, enhance funding for national security or

domestic discretionary. if that word was changed to and i would withdraw my amendment. senator enzi: we won't be voting on this immediately. senator sanders: can i ask senator king a question, just for clarification? i think there is widespread agreement that we want to end sequestration and need additional funding to do that. is it your suggestion that, in fact, one of the options are cuts to social security and medicare to funding the end of sequestration? senator: there a lot of mandatory spending that not social security. but under medicare under the drug program there is a lot of revenue to be realized.

$500 billion in other mandatory outside of social security and health care. we don't know what the solution is going to be and want to draw it as broadly as possible. senator sanders: there are ways we can bring in more revenue, but unless i'm mistaken the way i read it. this would open the path to cuts of social security and medicare. would it be possible for us to sit down and maybe rewrite your amendment? senator: the solution will come from whatever piece of legislation is brought forward and i was trying to keep it as broad as possible and have all the options on the table. there are a lot of mandatory spending that isn't tied up in benefits to people. senator sanders: you're right. but it does include the possibility of cuts to social security and medicare and concerns me. senator enzi: if we put the word

and in there, we could be asking the defense to talk about the nondiscretionary and change it instead of just changing within their jurisdiction and have someone else change within their jurisdiction. this wouldn't preclude changes in both jurisdictions, with the or in there. with the and, it might eliminate flexibility and violate some of the committee capability. senator: i don't think it would be a sensible reading to say that that would require the armed services committee to talk about head start. what it makes it clear is, if we are going to release sequester, it needs to be on both sides of the ledger. that's my intent. senator enzi: next amendment -- senator sessions. senator sessions: this is

something that many of you have voted on before. some of you may be in accord with me, but this is -- deals with the tax credits provided to illegal workers, people who are unlawfully in the country overstayed visas and working are filing-10 documents, that is individual tax identification numbered documents, not having social security numbers and are receiving tax refunds or tax credits, which defined by c.b.o. as a direct expenditure of the united states. according to the treasury inspector general 87% of applicants contained errors. many were accompanied by fraudulent documents and more than 55,000 were used multiple times on approximately 102,000

tax returns with refunds totalling more than $200 million in 1987. it really amounts to a welfare payment. many of them pay no taxes at all because their incomes are low and therefore these tax credits are direct payments from the u.s. taxpayers to people here that are here unlawfully. the inspector general said this would provide an additional incentive for people to enter the country unlawfully. to have a lawful system of immigration, the first thing we should do is not reward it by government benefits. that is so fundamental to our system, according to the i.r.s., quote, if the law were changed i.r.s. would change its programs accordingly. they apparently contend they don't have the money -- the authority to change it, as the inspector general recommended. it's estimated that this change would save $7.6 billion in

taxpayers' money. american working person has no duty to pay direct cash benefits to people who enter the country juffle unlawfully. some households are receiving benefits now. so, mr. chairman, i think this is the right thing to do and it also provides that persons who receive social security numbers under the -- any executive amnesty also would not have the benefit of receiving these tax credits. so, mr. president i would say that joint tax committee has calculated this would result in $1.1 billion in savings in 2018 alone. i would ask that colleagues support this amendment.

senator sanders: i think it is not a good idea to be talking about immigration issues piece by piece. several years ago, the senate passed comprehensive immigration reform. unform our colleagues in the house have not done so. so i think what senator sessions is talking about should be incorporated in real immigration reform -- which deals with all aspects of that important issue. i would mention to senator sessions that in 2012 alone, the social security administration estimates that undocumented workers contributed $12 billion into social security. these benefits work, these immigrants work and pay into social security but can't collect any benefits. this is really quite incredible, around 10% of the 2 -- $2.8

trillion trust fund for social security can be attributed to undocumented immigrants. c.b.o. has confirmed these immigrants contribute to our nation's economic growth and the budget's bottom line. point is i don't think we should deal with immigration issues piece by piece. i think they should be dealt with comprehensively. and i will vote against senator sessions' amendment. senator enzi: i think we used up all the time and you will get rebuttal at the time we do the vote. senator sanders would be next unless -- senator sanders: i've got one. colleagues, we have talked about many many important issues and i know many more important issues will be coming. the amendment i'm bringing forth now i think deals with the most fundamental issue that we can

address, and that is the integrity of american democracy and our political system. and what this amendment does is establishes a deficit-neutral reserve fund to allow for a constitutional amendment to overturn citizens united and to increase transparency in our political process. now, on this issue, there are no greater experts in the world than the people sitting around this room. we know more than all the political scienceists. and the issue i'm raising today is are you comfortable with an american political system that is increasingly being dominated by a handful of billionaires, whether they are republicans, whether they are democrats whether they are liberals, whether they are conservatives? do you want to run for office and understand that your campaign will be significantly

less important than the independent expenditures that may be spent in that campaign? are we a nation in which we pride ourselves on one person, one vote, or do we set aside and say ordinary american you got to vote, but the koch brothers and others can spend hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. the american people are profoundly disgusted with the kind of political system we are evolving into. and i will admit sometimes it works for republicans sometimes it works for democrats. but at the end of the day, we have got to ask ourselves, do we want a political system in which a handful of billionaires can buy and sell members of the united states congress, because that's really what it's about. so i would hope we would allow for this reserve fund to move us

towards a constitutional amendment to overturn citizens united a bring about transparency. if a billionaire wants to bring an ad attacking senator sessions or senator murray, that billionaire should put his face on the tv screen and identify himself and not be able to hide under some fancy name or citizens for this or citizens for that. i understand that this is a highly sensitive issue, but i would hope that all of us can say that the current system, which is increasingly dominated by billionaires is not what the american people deserve and i would ask for support of this amendment. senator enzi: i haven't concentrated on that particular issue, but i have always been in favor of people having to identify if they were part of an ad and i don't think that takes a constitutional amendment. and i hadn't envisioned the budget process setting up

constitutional amendments. you have a right to set those up any way without a deficit-neutral reserve fund. there's no cost to the senate other than time, which is pretty precious. senator sanders: we have a lot of time. any other opposition? senator toomey: our founding fathers would be appalled to the extent we have laws, rules and regulations that curb the ability of people to engage in free political speech, including during campaigns. if people are concerned about outside money that is not fully disclosed, i would say there is a simple solution and eliminate contribution limits to candidates and there wouldn't be any reason for people to have outside expenditures. the contributions would go to candidates and be discloudy skiesed and voters would no who is spending what and people

would have to take responsibility for the ads. we would have full disclosure and have free speech on political campaigns and i think that's the appropriate resolution. but the idea that we should overturn the supreme court's recognition of the first amendment, i think would be a big mistake. senator sanders: are we out of time? there is 19 seconds. senator enzi: there is time on our side. moving on with the amendment. next one is by senator crapo. senator crapo: mr. chairman, this is the crapo amendment number 2. this is a bipartisan amendment and i thank senators warner corker and merkley for joining

with me on this amendment, which establishes a scorekeeping rule to ensure that increases in guarantee fees of what's been called g-fees shall not be used to off jet provisions to offset the deficit. during the senate consideration of the fiscal year 2014 budget resolution, a similar amendment was co-sponsored by every single member of the senate banking committee and was included in the senate budget resolution by unanimous consent. however, because the senate and house did not adopt the sail budget, the point of order is not part of the senate rules and we need to pass this amendment. the purpose of the guaranteed fee is to offset prospective credit losses from borrower defaults. if you use the fees to offset new spending, then you are doubly counting the revenue. in december of 2011, congress passed a two-month extension of the payroll tax cut that was

offset by increasing the g-fees for 10 years. this was simply a tax increase on mortgage -- folks in the united states were paying mortgages in order to justify congressional spending. subsequent to this, additional attempts were made to use the extension of this g-fee as cost offsets in other legislation. directing that the good and tee fees to the treasury department go to the treasury department rather than protecting taxpayers from mortgage losses was used because it brings in a new source of revenue. any increase of guarantee fees should be used to protect taxpayers from mortgage losses and as a repayment for the bailout, not for a gimmicky offset. i'm offering this amendment with senators warner, corker and merkley to ensure that transfers will not be used to offset provisions that increase the deficit.

the practical effect of the amendment is one, a increase of guaranteed fees can be used to reduce the deficit and not be scored as an offset and two a 650-vote threshold will be required on a provision that spends more or reduces taxes and offset with a guarantee fee increase bus the fee would not be recognized as an offset. i would like to include in the record, a letter of support from a broad group of housing and trade associations and a letter of support from housing consumer groups. i would encourage my colleagues to support this bipartisan effort which has broad support and part. -- senator: the f.a.h.a.o.i.g. said they could come back and hit us with taxpayers. sheldon is asking what is crapo

and warner cooking up here. naccp, national federation of housing council and a variety of groups say g-fees ought to be kept in the housing industry. senator enzi: opposition ran over by 20 seconds. opposition? seeing no opposition, senator murray. senator murray: to build on the reserve funds that the chairman included in the 2016 budget for additional investments in programs that support our veterans and our service members. there is no more solemn promise that we make as a -- and they put their lives and limbs to protect our country. we need to meet that promise to care for them. this amendment builds on the existing reserve funds to add

additional support for critical programs that help our veterans and service members to access health and job training programs and specialty services would allow us to expand the eligibility for the comprehensive care deliver support program to veterans of all eras. this is a critical program that help veterans stay in their own homes with their loved ones and gives them a much better quality of life and is much more cost effective. the amendment would provide support to expedite processing of v.a. claims and bring down the backlog, contribute to v.a.'s infrastructure needs including major medical facility leases and reduce the wait time, which is needed so badly and help v.a. and d.o.d. to provide treatment to service members so they can realize their dream. it is long past time for these departments to provide this modern medicine and additional

support to make changes needed at the vmentl v.a. to get veterans the care they need and improve programs. we are moving in the right direction. in fixing some of these problems, but the work is far from over and this amendment will make sure we can continue that route and improving care and programs to support our veterans and service members. i think this is a priority we can all agree on and i urge its adoption. and i would ask unanimous consent to add senator wyden to the amendment. senator enzi: without objection. we already have a section 307 which is a deficit-neutral reserve fund. it could include these things but doesn't specify these things. anybody else wish to comment in opposition? senator baldwin: i would ask unanimous consent to be added to the amendment. senator enzi: without objection. senator sanders: i think senator murray brings up a very, very

important amendment. as former chair of the veterans committee, i strongly support what she is trying to do and get a strong vote for this. senator enzi: my question is to do what you did last year with a very significant piece of legislation. did you need a deficit neutral? senator murray: we will be allowed to do a lot of programs. and i think it's very important to have a caregiver program. senator enzi: next amendment would be by senator toomey. senator toomey: i would like to offer an amendment after senator graham offers his. it's more appropriate to do it at that time, i think. and if you would allow us to do that it will make more sense.

senator enzi: observation. -- without objection. i will move over to the other side and come over to senator johnson. senator stabenow: thank you very much. if you would allow me a one-two punch, just for the record, we introduced the medicare amendment that i had before that changes a date from 2014 to indicate the same budget years defined by the c.b.o. i can talk about that later. but basically the same amendment. . and then what i'd like to do is offer an amendment to maintain a senate point -- a budget point of order on health legislation that would add to the deficit. and the point of this is is that we have in front of us a budget that would repeal the

affordable care act that 16.4 million americans now are using to get health care for themselves and their families. the uninsured rate has fallen from 20% -- over 20% to 13% which is extraordinary. we all know there are fewer americans in bankruptcy now. there are folks receiving tax cuts to be able to avoid more coverage. we all know that there's more opportunities to make sure you don't get dropped and you can find health insurance if you have a pre-existing condition. but what we have in this budget is a very interesting situation. i disagree totally with eliminating the affordable care act but if this budget is going to do that, then it needs to make sure and recognize that adds to the deficit. so what we have -- this amendment would strike language

exempting any long-term deficit created by repealing the affordable care act from a point of order. so we have a point of order in the budget for anything that adds to the deficit, but we have a section that specifically excludes the affordable care act from that. so think about it. this budget is conceding the fact that the affordable care act has reduced the deficit and we peeling the law would increase the deficit. in fact, the most recent c.b.o. estimate shows that repealing the affordable care act would increase the deficit by $210 billion. you can't rig the rules on both sides. i mean, this particular budget, among other things -- of course keeps the revenue rates, the fees and taxes from the affordable care act while cutting health care for people and then to mask the fact that it would add to the deficit,

there's a specific exclusion on page 69 of the chairman's mark that would exempt the affordable care act from being counted when it comes to increasing long-term deficits. that's not fair. i would argue that's really budget gimmickry. i think it's important if you are going to eliminate the affordable care act, you have to step up and assume the consequences of that. and one of those, according to the congressional budget office is the fact that our deficit will go up. so this amendment would strike that provision to maintain a point of order on any health care legislation that would add to the deficit. senator enzi: well, i think first of all probably any repeal is probably going to take at least 60 votes and probably 67 votes. so we're talking about some things -- i'm a little confused

between -- i got one here that says medicare and i've got another one that -- we're not numbered here so i have a little trouble telling which one i'm supposed to be on at the moment. senator stabenow: mr. chairman, if i must say, i was recommitting the medicare one based on a change that relates to going from 2014 to a different language on the budget year. i just put that in for the record and didn't talk about it because i had talked about it before. and then -- so essentially i was offering both the medicare amendment just as a read -- your staff asked that i redo it and so we've redone it in terms of introducing it. i'm speaking to the ensure health care doesn't add to the deficit so we have really honest budgeting as we go forward on as the costs related

to repealing the affordable care act. senator enzi: ok. senator sessions. senator sessions: i'm going to offer an amendment later to deal with these issues of accountability. the obamacare act counts over $400 billion in medicare cuts to pay for this new program. and c.b.o. said you can't simultaneously use the money on medicare and then spend it on a new program. so we double counted that money. this says you can't have any more cuts, i suppose, any more reduction in outlays for medicare but our colleagues have done in passing the affordable care act by far had the largest cut of spending from medicare in the history of the program.

also, we didn't fix the doctor fix. we didn't even use it to pay the doctors with it. so anyway, i think we need to get honest about how we handle medicare funding. i don't think would be the right approach to it. thank you, mr. chairman. senator enzi: i'd just add, like i said, it takes 60 votes to make any change around here. it's probably going to take 67 if we change the affordable care act at all. hopefully we could work together to make corrections that need to be made to things. i know that that passed under reconciliation. half of it passed under reconciliation so it didn't have a 60-vote and so there's some animosity on our side toward having that happened. i don't think the amendment is necessary. senator stabenow: mr. chairman it's more to the point -- it's just more to the point of the fact that deficit implications are not included in this

budget. senator enzi: the next amendment would be by lindsey graham. lindsey's not here. ron johnson. senator johnson. senator johnson: thank you, mr. chairman. this is an amendment that's going to address the problem of -- don't like the result. of state and local governments that have increased their unfunded pension liabilities. there have been estimates that those unfunded liability or pension liabilities are approaching $5 trillion. and this amendment just simply creates a -- it says spending neutral but i'm happy to change that to deficit neutral. to prevent the use of any federal funds for the bailout of those state and local governments. simply would not be fair to

states that actually are fiscally responsible like the state of wisconsin, whose pensions are 99% funded. oregon is over 09%. tennessee is over 90% -- oregon is over 90%. tennessee is over 90%. with the looming debt in our country, we can't afford as a federal government to be bailing out state and local governments. senator enzi: opposition? senator sanders. senator sanders: i'm sure senator johnson would work with me to make sure we don't bail out the crooks on wall street who helped destroy the american economy and leave millions of people without their homes, their jobs or their life savings and i'm sure you ought to join me in making sure we don't bail out defense contractors when their cost overruns are extraordinary to the tune of tens of billions of dollars. i don't think anybody feels great about bailing out anybody, but i think you have to look a situation by situation and move in that

correction. senator johnson: i would say i wouldn't want to bail out crooks either. i'm just talking about state and local governments. senator kaine: why do you need a deficit neutral reserve fund to not bail someone out? it seems like putting zero in that fund would be the best thing to do so you are not going to be bailing them out so why would you need that? senator johnson: budget rules. the main point, we should not be bailing out state and local governments. however we have to write it for the budget resolution i think that's budget rules. senator enzi: this may sound a little flip too but i think we may be expecting them to bail us out. any opposition? senator stabenow. senator stabenow: my question to the author as to how you define that? is that local transportation money, community development block grants? is that funding of health

centers. is that -- i mean, what do you account? because i don't know any situation where we've bailed out cities or counties or states per se. we certainly support services, public services. are you suggesting -- what are you suggesting, i guess? senator johnson: specifically, it's prohibit federal funds from going to state and local governments to prevent receivership or facilitate exit from receivership or prevent default on obligations except the national disaster. for example, 47 municipalities have filed for bankruptcy and that's what's really contemplated here. trying to bail those cities, for example, like detroit, and there were some indications -- senator stabenow: they did not ask for a bailout. we'd welcome you to come and take a look.

senator johnson: i understand. there were people potentially talking about that. maybe not the government officials but, again, i'm just trying to make sure we get on record we will not be -- we will not be bailing out those states, those local governments that might be going into receivership or bankruptcy. senator enzi: next -- i don't see senator whitehouse. senator warner i guess would be next. senator warner: thank you, mr. chairman. this would actually build on the good work of the ranking member and senator murray and many on this committee have done to help veterans. one of the biggest challenges is to get the v.a. to recognize change. there was a process that started in virginia, has now gone to 40 different law schools around the country where veterans law clinics are set up to help process veterans' claims. there's still too large a backlog on these claims. this is a deficit neutral reserve fund wouldn't cost the

government a difmente it would simply say, we ought to encourage more of these law schools to create these veterans clinics. it's good for the veterans. it's good for the law students. it's obviously good for the taxpayer. the v.a. has been very slow at adopting this and i think this would hundred nudge something along that has been uniformerly supported. -- uniformly supported. senator enzi: is there opposition? next would be senator -- >> could i ask consent that my amendment dealing with tax credits for unlawful immigrants be modified to make clear when it says benefits for aliens after those words be added unlawfully present in the

country? i failed to state that in the document. senator enzi: the author has the right to amend his amendment. senator sessions: thank you. senator enzi: we need to get copies. senator perdue, did you have another amendment? senator purdue: no senator enzi: senator ayotte, did you have another amendment? senator ayotte: i have an amendment and it is -- i have an amendment that's a deficit neutral reserve fund to provide energy assistance and conservation.

and from my perspective, i think affordable energy drives our economy but also there have been -- we need to ensure we protect our natural resources and my state of new hampshire is a beautiful state where we've been able to balance finding things like energy efficiency and protecting our natural resources. and this amendment would allow us to pursue an all-of-the-above energy strategy with -- and look at how we develop the best energy domestic-wise and also the best technology to protect our environment. senator enzi: is there opposition? senator sanders. senator sanders: i am not opposed. i think this amendment touches on exactly the right issues. it's an issue we have been dealing with year after year after year. i would urge senator ayotte to perhaps get some of her colleagues onboard this concept

going beyond a -- just a deficit-neutral reserve fund. we need to invest billions of dollars in energy efficiency, weatherization and sustainible energy. her amendment is exactly the right thing. but we have to go beyond a deficit-neutral reserve fund. senator enzi: next would be senator baldwin. senator baldwin: thank you chairman enzi. i would like to bring up the baldwin amendment to strike section 405 of the budget resolution. this amendment is also co-sponsored by senator warner. it's very simple. it would strike section 405 of the chairman's mark which eliminated a point of order against reconciliation legislation that would increase the deficit or reduce a surplus. i can see no good reason why we should be making it easier to

increase the debt and deficit that the majority has given great voice to during the opening remarks of this budget markup session. if your reconciliation legislation is important then it ought to be paid for. and not say, well we'll just take care of that later. so it's a very simple amendment, and i want to yield the rest of my time to senator warner. senator warner: thank you senator baldwin. i think those of us who have been on this committee for sometime remember senator conrad. it was called the conrad rule. it was put in, if i remember correctly, against the wishes of many on our side. it simply said if you're going to use reconciliation, you want to use these extraordinary rules, let's stay true to the

purpose which ought to be about reducing the deficit. i find it more than curious that this, one of the most important tools in this budget other -- budgetory process, that we don't add to the debt, that we don't add to the deficit, if we use extraordinary actions like reconciliation, they have the goal of reducing the deficit. while anyone who is in favor of taking on the crisis, the $18.5 trillion in debt that goes up $120 billion per point in additional interest rates i just fail to understand why some of the protections that were put in at great strife overcoming democratic opposition that anyone that was fiscally responsible would want to take that out. senator enzi: the reason they'd want to take that out is because that was put in just after you did the affordable care act so that nobody could do anything with the affordable care act. so all this section of the

budget does is repeal provisions restrict the treatment of all equal -- [inaudible] senator enzi: it would restrict the treatment of all reconciliation bills and it's needed to restore that equal treatment. so this will eliminate something that would make it consistent with budget law prior to the year 2008. yeah, you're right 2008. but all reconciliation bills should be created equal, and there's called the byrd rule and the byrd rule demands that reconciliation bills not increase the deficit in the long term. so there's a long -- long-standing historical protection there that will assure what you're trying to do will be done. the next amendment, senator

portman. senator portman: thank you, mr. chairman. offering a deficit reserve fund for federal job training programs. the language before the members has been altered to change from spending neutral to deficit neutral and removing the appropriate references to that. and this is an amendment that talks about reducing redundancy improving access and enhancing the outcomes for federal job training programs. recall we did pass legislation last year that helps in this regard. it was called the career act. it was co-sponsored by senator bennet and myself. but this would say that -- although we made some progress we have a long way to go. it complements the amendment which was discussed earlier regarding career and technical education with senator kaine and myself and i believe

senator kaine is going to co-sponsor this amendment as well. but to the point he made earlier about skills training, this is about taking this to worker retraining programs. right now we know from what g.a.o. has told us that approximately $18 billion is being spent to administrator different employment and training programs over nine different federal ways. by the way 44 of those 47 programs are viewed to be overlapping with one another by the g.a.o.. with regard to the programs, g.a.o. says, quote, little is known about the effectiveness of most programs. so we talked earlier about the need for not just more jobs but better jobs. that's going to come from more productivity. that's going to come from better training. that's going to come from closing the skills gap. this is an incredibly important way to do it we're spending $18 bling a year and we really don't know where the money is going. this is an opportunity to improve access to the programs and enhance outcomes. i would urge all my colleagues to support the portman-kaine

amendment on worker retraining. senator enzi: opposition, comments? seeing none we can move on to senator merkley. senator merkley: thank you very much, mr. chair. earlier we had senator kaine's proposal regarding career and technical education and a deficit neutral reserve fund, provide the opportunity to address that. i have a companion legislation that addresses science, technology engineering and mathematics. it did include c.t.e., but i'm proposing i strike that out. this addresses the portion that was not addressed previously. stem education science, technology, engineering and mathematics, incredibly important to many of our high-growth areas of the economy. and these programs are generally offered as after-school programs which provide a tremendous opportunity for kids who would otherwise be latch key kids, heading home to an empty house

to stay and engage in something -- and these are for example, robotic programs, where they learn teamwork, they learn leadership. they learn journalistic skills and they learn engineering skills and that's been a tremendously successful program in many parts of my state. it's so small in investment right now that many schools are unable to participate. i'd like to have the opportunity for us to expand these programs. thank you, mr. chair.

senator enzi: i'm going to have -- i've already provided for two from this side to do amendments consecretarytively but i'm going to go ahead and do a second one over on that side because senator kaine hasn't gotten one to do on that side. then we have two on this side that hasn't gotten to do the second one yet. senator kaine: thank you, mr. chair. i have an amendment to establish a deficit neutral reserve fund relating to ongoing d.o.d. initiatives to bolster resilience of mission-critical defense infrastructure from impacts by climate change. the amendment looks to support their efforts to strengthen installation infrastructure to withstand impacts from sea level rise drought and other climate impacts. the hampton roads region in my state is home to the largest naval installation, naval station norfolk. in this defense heavy region, sea level rise is occurring must faster than the historical

rate of one foot a century. scientists list sea level rise anywhere from 7 1/2 to 100 feet by 2107. by 2040 will be inundated by daily tides two to three hours a day. this has always been a flood-prone region but all acknowledge that climate change is a significant factor. we had a hearing this summer in hampton roads and when i pointed out the problem it posed for our infrastructure a d.o.d. witness said you're not the only place affected. try running a military base in a place without a water supply. this is affecting military bases all over the country. the d.o.d. released an adaptation climate adaptation road map to see what measures are being taken on bases throughout the country and the g.a.o. released a report how the d.o.d. can improve its infrastructure, planning and processes using three states as an example. alaska california and virginia.

with the prospect of a brac round in the future, which we would all hope to avoid in our state, a reserve fund such as this which could help states deal with these challenges and then maybe avoid a bracc scaledown or closure would be appropriate and so i would ask support for my amendment. thank you. senator enzi: opposition? this is meant to be flippant. doesn't that deepen your port? the next amendment then be by senator graham. followed by senator toomey. senator graham: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment will increase the o.c.o. account by $38 billion and i don't know if we have the charts on isil -- anyway, in 2011, we entered into sequestration and there's the chart somewhere around

here, i thought, that would show you where isil is today in terms of territory they hold. they didn't basically exist then. so the reason i'm trying to increase the -- right. they're probably coming there. the reason i'm trying to increase the o.c.o. account is because the president has rightly said we may leave more troops behind in afghanistan than we planned. there are at least 3,000 soldiers in iraq today and the numbers are going to sclime if we're going to be successful. so overseas contingency operations in 2015 are completely different than what we expected in 2011. and we pay for this increase by taking the savings outside the 10-year window and moving them forward. i would like to yield to senator ayotte who has been a champion of this cause of trying to replenish our military spending. senator ayotte: i'm a co-sponsor of this amendment and i would just say given the threats we face around the

world, our military presence in both iraq and the air strikes we're conducting in both iraq and syria, this is -- the defense situation and what we need to do to protect our interests have changed dramatically since the budget control act passed. and as we look here, this is appropriate to increase money for o.c.o. given the threats that we face around the world which are requiring the deployment of our troops and our assets and i want to thank senator graham for his leadership on this. >> mr. chairman. senator enzi: senator toomey. senator toomey: mr. chairman, i want to fully acknowledge the important work that senator graham and ayotte and others have done out of a very, very legitimate concern of our defense funding level. i share their concern. however, i'm also concerned that this creates a mechanism by which defense spending could be increased quite significantly without any offset. and it is my strongly held view that while we need to increase

our defense spending, for the sake of the fiscal solvency of our government and our long-term viability, frankly, as a nation, we need to rein in spending and we need to offset the increases that are entirely necessary on the defense side. i'm going to reluctantly support the amendment in the form it is in now despite the fact that i really don't improve of the offset that's contemplated by the graham amendment. i appreciate senator graham and the other members on our side working with me on an amendment that i'll introduce after this which i'll speak about but hopes to ensure this device is not the permanent way that we solve our defense funding shortfall. senator graham: if i may, senator toomey, i want to look for an offset. it's my goal to increase spending. one last thing about sequestration. there's 163 programs exempted from sequestration.

one of them is our own pay. i'm going to go through when we get on the floor and talk about what we left out of sequestration and see if we got our priorities right in this nation. senator enzi: opposition. >> mr. chairman, this discussion is really quite extraordinary. senator sanders: hearing after hearing we hear my republican colleagues say the deficit is killing us, the national debt is killing us. we got to cut programs for the children, for the elderly, for the sick and the poor. suddenly all of that rhetoric, all of that discussion disappears because what we're looking at now undisputed lisa total budget gimmick. what you're saying is, let's spend -- what was it, $38 billion more for defense, but let's not count that as part of

the deficit, we're going to put it in the overseas contingency account. it's not deficit strange but it is real money. so in my view, we can argue about how much war we need -- more we need for defense. at the very least i hope my republican colleagues would remember what they've been lecturing the american people about year after year after year and that is that deficits are real. let's not have a gimmick. you want to debate defense spending, let's debate it. this is a gimmick. this amendment ought to be defeated. senator enzi: other comments and opposition? there's still 41 seconds left. senator stabenow. senator graham: no, no, go ahead. senator stabenow: i just wanted to note when senator kyl and i were working for a couple years to use the overseas contingent account to address the doctor fix in medicare, we were told it was a fake account and we were talking about, well, if

it's a fake account, the doc fix is a fake cut. let's put it together and get rid of both of them. so we never did that in terms of medicare, but now we're talking about taking the fake account and moving it ahead into the 10-year window to increase defense spending. i just think we should do it in a much more straightforward way and pay for it. senator enzi: all time has expired on the amendment. senator toomey. senator toomey: thank you, mr. chairman. so my amendment is in direct response to the amendment that senator graham and others have -- my concern in the absence of my amendment and assuming that senator graham's amendment skeds, we will have significantly increased o.c.o. spending and if that spending actually is appropriated, which it might well -- might well occur, then the o.c.o. baseline is increased correspondingly

and that adds up to a very, very large number over 10 years. so what my amendment would simply do is to ensure that the amount of o.c.o. funding that would be spared from a budget point of order would in 2017 be the number that -- it would be whether or not senator -- in the event senator graham's amendment would not succeed. so in other words, we don't permanently expand the o.c.o. level of funding. it occurs in one year and not thereafter. senator enzi: opposition to the toomey amendment? we'll go ahead with some additional amendments. how about we have the next traunch of votes at -- what's reasonable 4:00? at 4:00. we'll cover all the ones that we've got here so far.

i think senator wyden would be next. do you have an amendment? senator wyden: thank you very much, mr. chairman. this is a deficit neutral reserve fund to protect, you know medicaid. and colleagues, i recognize that this is a controversial, you know, issue and i just want to understand why i feel very strongly about this. this goes back to the day when i was co-director of the oregon panthers. i had hair and rugged good looks. it was a long time ago. senator enzi: beyond my memory. senator wyden: and medicaid

covered 60% of nursing home residents. this is the key to ensuring access to long-term care for vulnerable low-income seniors and persons, you know, with disability. so i know we're going to have a discussion and we're going to throw numbers around fast and furious, as is the case, because that's what we do in budgets but i just want colleagues to understand that if we pass this amendment, i am very interested in working with senators on both sides of the aisle as the ranking democrat to look at reforms that are going to strengthen this program. i just want us to recognize that i think this kind of approach is going to put at risk a crucial benefit that millions of grandparents and parents and families rely on

from one part of the country. reform absolutely. there's not a one of these programs that we can't reform, and i look at my colleagues on, you know, the other side of the aisle, whether it has been comprehensive reform. senator crapo and i have teamed up. a number of you have been part of the important bipartisan efforts where we ensure the protection and well-being of vulnerable people and we also demonstrate that you can find some real savings. i just think the medicaid budget, as constituted today, puts particularly at risk seniors in long-term care facilities, in nursing homes medicaid covers 60% of that population and i, again, would hope that we pass this amendment and then vow to take a balanced approach that

ensures we recognize what the demographic challenge is going to be all about. we're going to have 10,000 seniors turning 65 every day for years and years to come now. that's not in dispute, but this budget, i think, is going to be particularly harsh on vulnerable older people in nursing homes and i hope colleagues will support the amendment. senator sessions: mr. chairman, in the budget control act and the sequester that was part of it, a lot of major programs received no reductions in their growth pass. medicaid being probably the largest. it's growing at a substantial percentage every year, and it received no reductions in that growth at all. neared did food stamps and neither did a lot of other programs. so i would just say we do need to review how to make medicaid run better, and any good program has got to be more than just tinkering around the edges. it's a program that helps the

poor, not the elderly. really. it's a program for low-income people, and i thank the -- i think we're on the -- we should not adopt this amendment because senator wyden i do believe you are very sincere to improve the program. i think the language in here would go further than i would be willing to agree as we work to reforming the program and making it better. senator wyden: mr. chairman, i'll be very brief by view of rebuttal. colleagues, it strikes right at the heart of the entitlement, you know, issue. there is something in between doing no policy, you know, reforms. i understand that. i'm interested in protecting vulnerable people. i'm very much aware we're going to need some policy reforms to do that. there is something in between that and $400 billion which, in my view, is going to put at risk so many of these older

people. and i'm sure all of you -- i've seen a number of are you talk about the demographics in the days -- in days ahead. not only are we going to see all these baby boomers turn 65 but we've seen a rapid increase of the number of people live beyond the age of 80 based on some of the studies i see. that's pretty much a prescription to needing medicaid long-term care dollars in a lot of instances because they live so long. they'll essentially exhaust, you know, their private resources. for example, senator sessions talks about new policies. one of the things i'm interested in is fresher approaches. we'll look at it on the finance committee to improve private savings for long-term care. again, that's going to take some time. we've got, you know, people who i believe are going to suffer under this approach. thank you, mr. chairman, for the time. senator enzi: there's still a minute left in the opposition.

i'd just -- i want to make a couple of comments on it. i'm not -- i'm not sure that -- based on my past experience -- used to be the chairman of health, education, labor and pensions. we were able to eliminate some programs streamline some programs combine some programs and make a difference so that the effective childcare programs were able to continue and to have a little bit more money. i'm not sure in the wording of this that would be a possibility in anything in medicaid. we've got to be able to scrutinize these things. the authorizing budget is the one that scrutinizes them. not the budget committee. we ought to give them the flexibility. my experience with any program, if you reduce the level of request, you're considered to have cut their budget. so there has to be a -- there has to be a lot more definitions on what's involved in that so -- the next

amendment is senator crap o'. -- senator crapo. senator crapo: thank you, mr. chairman. this is the crapo amendment number 3 so end operation choke point. late last summer, news reports surfaced regarding a department of justice-led initiative that targets certain industries' ability to access banking services without first showing that the companies or industries are breaking the law. rather than targeting bad actors for illegal activity, this effort, known as operation choke point, is causing banks to deny or terminate credit lines due to fear of d.o.j. subpoenas or unjustified regulatory action by federal banking regulators. legitimate industries, legal but not acceptable, apparently, to the administration are now facing the threat of the d.o.j. oversight and unjustified regulatory pressure. one of the supporters of this

amendment, the chamber of commerce, has stated enforcement agencies have the tools to root out fraud and predation and the chamber supports their efforts to do so but under operation choke point government officials punish entire categories of lawful businesses by instilling fear in the institutions that bank them. this has left banks with little choice but to terminate long-standing relationships with customers because of explicit or implicit threats from their regulator or the department of justice. now, who are these disfavored industries? well, we found out that one of them is the firearms and ammunition industry in the united states. in idaho we heard from several idaho businesses owners in the gun and ammunition business industry who found it hard to find banking services as a result of this operation. at the urging of many members of congress, the federal financial regulators updated their regulated guidance and

frankly ended the list of unacceptable businesses in the united states but they've continued operation choke point. getting them to withdraw their list of unacceptable businesses was a good first step, but we must eliminate this inappropriate program. that's why i'm offering this amendment to establish a deficit neutral reserve fund to end the department of justice operation choke point and frankly in this case to protect the second amendment. this amendment is supported by the national rifle association, the gun owners of america, the national shooting sports foundation, and not just industries related to the second amendment. it's supported by the american bankers association, the credit union national association electronic transactions association, independent community bankers of america, the national association of federal credit unions and the u.s. chamber of commerce. the department of justice must not politicize its enforcement policies, and we must not let operation choke point continue.

>> mr. chairman. thank you, mr. chairman. the description we've just heard -- and senator crapo and i have been having a conversation about it, is unrecognizable to the program as it exists. what is this program really about? it's this. that electronic transactions are occurring that pull money out of citizens' bank accounts without their permission. senator kaine: these remote transactions -- mr. merkley: these have been used. there is one bank which suffered an assault which $2.4 billion was taken out of their customers' accounts without their permission. and there was a case in california where a large sum was taken out of customers' accounts for services that they did not order. these type of remote electronic transactions have been a problem of theft, a predatory theft from ordinary citizens.

so the department of justice put together a working group to say this must stop. now, there has been the allegation, as we've heard that legitimate businesses have been targeted. quite frankly, the evidence of that is extraordinarily scarce but i've offered a friendly amendment to modify this particular provision to say don't end the program but modify it so that the legitimate transactions of legitimate businesses are not affected. and so that means it would continue to target these predatory activities that are stealing money from american citizens while making sure legitimate activities are not touched. and so i offer that friendly amendment. senator crapo: mr. chairman, to respond. senator merkley and i have been discussing and i am not in position to accept this amendment because it allows operation choke point to

continue. let me be very clear. nothing in this amendment will stop the legitimate functions of the department of justice or other financial regulators from dealing with fraud. i'd like to just quickly read from the american bankers association letter -- by it was signed by the credit unions, the independent bankers and the american bankers association. and they state. senator crapo's amendment would in no way inhibit the enforcement of anti-fraud laws. all of the requirements of the bank secrecy act and other anti-fraud statutes would continue in full force and effect just as they did before the operation of operation -- the creation of operation choke point. and then they go on to point out how the banks and credit unions in this country work closely with d.o.j. and their financial regulators to deal with the exact kinds of issues that the senator is raising. my point is simply this. there is no reason for us to

continue to allow this kind of an operation which targets legitimate businesses. that's what we are asking to stop, and nothing will be changed in terms of the law, in terms of the authority of the department of justice or our financial regulators to deal with fraud. >> mr. chairman. senator enzi: senator merkley. senator merkley: quite to the contrary. it's true that statutes will remain in place but operation choke point was the effort to create the unit to enforce the statutes. if you get rid of the unit that enforces the statute then you end up with a situation where you have laws on the books but those laws were not protecting citizens from these remote electronic transactions stealing their money. and so i have offered a friendly amendment that says, yes, modify the program to make sure it does not target legitimate activities by legitimate interests. but to end the program would hurt americans across this

country. senator enzi: next amendment is by senator whitehouse. senator whitehouse: thank you very much, mr. chairman. our responsibility to meet the emergency management needs of the country and the disaster expenses that we face and what we find is that in recent years what's actually been put into the budget has been running around $1.5 billion to $2 billion. but what we've spent is $53 billion. $13 billion. $7.1 billion. and $55 billion in -- i'm sorry -- $17 billion in 2013. so there's a recurring gap what we budget for and what we experience in our disaster response. and this amendment would create

a deficit neutral reserve fund that would relate to fema's ability to prepare for this. in rhode island we've seen unprecedented fisheries disasters. we've seen unprecedented storm activity from sandy. we have seen homes washed into the sea. we have 10 flches of measured sea level rise. and as the carbon loading that we're doing to our atmosphere and oceans continues, the continued weather weirding and weather wilding that we've seen all over the place i think will keep -- i think reasonable people could project and experience would lead us to project those disaster expenditures high. so i hope we can support the deficit neutral reserve fund relating to preparedness in the federal emergency management agency to respond to these disasters both on land and in the oceans. for those of us in ocean states we're seeing ocean disasters as well for which we then have to fight for emergency funding

because we have not adequately prepared ourselves for what is foreseeable. senator enzi: in opposition i would mention if you look at some of the details in the budget something that i complained about since i got to the senate is in there and what i complained about was at that time we were having about $4 billion a year in disasters but it was always an emergency. and i said, if you got $4 billion a year, maybe you ought to plan ahead for it and put it into the budget. well that now has gone up to $7 billion a year on average for disasters. so you'll find that i put $7 billion a year in for the all -- each of the 10 years of the budget so we would actually be acknowledging these disasters. that's probably better than -- senator whitehouse: we hope we can agree on at least this. >> mr. chairman, any time on this bill?

senator enzi: briefly. senator sessions: the director of e.p.a. was before the public works committee the week before and i inquired of her what evidence she had that we had more storms. in fact, it's real clear we had fewer hurricanes substantially fewer in the last decade contrary to global warming predictions. we've also had less tornadoes. it's also ipcc, the international panel on climate change acknowledges that soil moisture worldwide has not dried -- been reduced. in fact, it's slightly greater. i don't know what the future leads us, but we're fortunate that we haven't had more hurricanes also, no more tornadoes and apparently fewer droughts. and i've asked her questions to provide any evidence she had to support her suggestions and

statements we had more of all of these and i look forward to her answers in the next week or two. senator enzi: senator johnson has the next amendment. senator johnson: thank you, mr. chairman. i think as a fellow coloradan, you are frustrating on obtaining information on programs. i'm hoping this amendment will follow in the same bipartisan spirit of trying to obtain the information but i'm concerned as we've now implemented obamacare c.b.o. in their projections have stopped reporting the numbers, the cost of obamacare or the -- i'm sorry, the patient protection and affordable care act, the way they were in trying to get the bill passed. so this is just a simple amendment that requires transparent reporting on the ongoing costs of the patient protection and affordable care act and i'm hoping that this will garner bipartisan support. senator enzi: opposition?

senator stabenow: mr. chairman. senator enzi: senator stabenow. senator stabenow: if the senator will be willing to add cost and savings as an amendment? senator johnson: absolutely. whatever the full measure, the full information in terms of the effect of health care law is on our budget, i'm happy to include that. senator sanders: is the senator willing to redo his amendment? senator johnson: yes. i'll work with the senator to find out what language we need to include in there. senator enzi: further opposition? your side again.

>> this is an amendment i had with senator ayotte. may not solve every problem that we're addressing but is a small step forward is this is the -- some of the outgrowth of the task force, the performance task force where we passed legislation to eliminate dupe i will -- duplicative and unnecessary reports. senator warner: we now have 4,000 on last that's readvise on a regular basis. and this would, again, simply nudge this process along. senator ayotte may want to speak to this. this is our government reports, kelly. senator ayotte: i just want to support senator warner on this. this has been important work that we've done in the performance fantastic force. so i fully support this amendment. it's good government. it makes sense and i thank him for bringing it. senator warner: i would add,

mr. chairman, we have been able to document, it's only millions of savings from this but it all counts. senator enzi: well i appreciate the effort of both of you and all the time that you put in reviewing regulations. i know how fascinating they are to read. any opposition? next on our side would be senator ayotte. senator ayotte: i have a deficit neutral reserve fund to address heroin and prescription opioid abuse. i don't know if you're all experiencing this in your states in the same way we're experiencing this in new hampshire. this is a public health epidemic. we've had a 60% increase in drug deaths from heroin, and heroin is so cheap on the streets right now that people who are addicted to prescription drugs are now shifting to heroin and it's really killing people. we need to address this and look at this issue and make sure that we're working with state and localities to stop this public health epidemic.

we need to work with law enforcement as well but we can't arrest our way fully out of this problem, unfortunately, which is devastating people in this country. senator enzi: opposition? senator warner: i'd like to be added as a co-sponsor. senator enzi: without objection. senator sessions: and i would too. senator enzi: without objection. without objection. back to your side again. senator kaine. senator kaine: i have one along the line i call it the ron johnson style of amendment of information. it's simply to require the c.b.o. congressional budget office, when they produce the budget and economic outlook to produce a list of tax expenditures from 1965 to the

present and then projected for the following 10 years. this is a slightly different format than senator whitehouse but simply require that information to be in the congressional budget office budgets and economic outlook they produce every year. very straightforward. just information. senator sessions: senator kaine, do you consider things like home mortgage deduction or charitable contribution as a tax expenditure? senator kaine: yes. any of the deductions. it's the whole package. it's the total amount would all have to be listed so we have that information. senator sessions: i think that's one way to look at it. i don't think most people do. senator kaine: this isn't proposing they bechanged. it's just to have the information before us. senator sessions: thank you. >> may i be added as a co-sponsor? the difference between senator

kaine's information and i his would require c.b.o. to do it on a more continuing basis. i think it's worthy information for us to be aware of and i support it and asked to be added as a co-sponsor. senator enzi: without objection. ok. on our side, senator sessions would be next. senator sessions: mr. president, hundreds of billions of dollars in medicare savings to the hospital insurance trust fund were double counted under the affordable care act. at least $400 billion in the fiscal year 2010-201 period. c.m.s. center for medical group, says the improved hospital insurance financing

cannot simultaneously be used to finance other federal outlays such as coverage expansions on the ppaca, which is the affordable care act, and to expand the trust fund despite the appearance of this result from respected accounting provisions. c.b.o. says key points that savings to the hospital insurance trust fund under obamacare -- and i'm quoting directly -- would be received by the government only once so they cannot be used, set aside to pay for future medicare spending and at the same time pay for current spending on other parts of legislation or on other programs. to describe the full amount of h.i. trust fund savings as both improving the government's ability to pay future medicare benefits and financing new spending outside medicare would essentially double count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the

improvement in the government's fiscal position. so this is a huge thing. the double count $400 billion as was done when we passed -- you passed the legislation on december 23 of whenever it was and -- so that is the point in question. so we do need transparency and colleagues, we need to understand this. it's just not right to cut a social security or a medicare expense or benefits and claim you -- on programs that are heading to disaster financially and claim you saved money that can be spent on another account. if money is saved in medicare, if money is saved in social security it should be used to strengthen those programs effectively. so i hope that this amendment would allow us to think more clearly and more transparently about this issue.

senator enzi: opposition? senator sanders: we're going to have to study senator session's amendment. senator stabenow: mr. chairman just for the record. when we were strengthening medicare with wellness visits and closing what closing what we call the doughnut hole to allow seniors to get lower cost prescription medications, we looked at things like overpayments, medicare advantage has a role to play but i remember asking the budget office at the time if we cap the payments for medicare advantage at 150% of what doctors and hospitals receive through the direct medicare program, would there be any