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 savings and they

said yes. so there was such a huge overpayment going on, 85% of seniors going through traditional medicare 15% through the private insurance market and the amount of money going at that time to private insurance market was hugely overpaid compared to everybody else and most seniors then were picking up the costs system of point is, we put some caps on overpayment that have saved dollars. and that in fact have gone back into making sure seniors can receive prescription drugs by closing the doughnut hole by getting a wellness visit every year without out of pocket cost, and other things. while we have to look at this amendment, i would say to my friend from alabama that i come from a very different perspective about what we actually did because i believe

that we looked for savings and then strengthened medicare, in fact benefits for seniors have gone up. mr. -- >> when medicare costs were cut, the money should have gone to doc fix, but it was taken and spent on ppaca, but not for the doctors. but your reforms, some of those did work. >> mr. chairman. >> senator wyden. senator wyden: because medicare is part of the federal budget, medicare savings and health reform extend the life of the insurance trust fund and reduce the federal budget deficit. the analogy i'd make is this is similar to a baseball player hitting a home run. it adds to his team's score and

it also improves his batting average. neither situation would be double counted. so, you know, to me, we ought to kind of get on with, as i characterize it again this morning when we had a hearing on the affordable care act, bipartisan approaches that are going to protect the medicare guarantee and generate savings. but i'm opposed to this amendment because -- by the way i would say not in a partisan way, republican controlled congresses didn't object when c.b.o. projected medicare savings to both extend the sal -- solvency of medicare and reduce the deficit under several other approaches, the balanced budget act of 1997 thabbed deaf -- and the deficit reduction act of 2005. i hope we reject this amendment

and get on with, as we talked about this morning with some bipartisan approaches to protect the medicare guarantee, particularly in the area of tackling chronic disease. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. enzi: you can't spend the same dollar twice. republicans did do it in the past, we need to end it. >> we said we'd vote at 4:00, it's a few minutes past 4:00 so we'll go ahead and get started. the first amendment sup senator king with his sequester replacement. >> are we beginning to vote? >> yes. people need like five minutes? >> would you mind if we took five minutes before beginning that?

>> as long as we only take five minutes and that's not normal for us, you know. >> mr. chairman, are we taking a break? are we taking a break? i didn't hear your -- mr. enzi: i was hoping not but how many requests are there to take a break? none, ok. we will go ahead, then. first amendment is senator king's. senator king: this creates a deficit neutral reserve fund in order to be a place keeper for

finding a solution to the sequester which i think we all agree is not good either on the domestic or the defense side. it says that it should be both defense and nondefense and it allows spending cuts as well as revenues. mr. enzi: opposition? >> mr. chairman. senator king appropriately wants to end sequestration and i think almost all of us agree with him on that mr. sanders: but the way his amendment is written calls for, and i quote to be offset with changes in mandatory programs and receipt, end of quote. as he indicated earlier there many ways you could do it but it does leave the possibility open for significant cuts in social security and medicare and for that reason, i will oppose that amendment. mr. enzi: by the way --

mr. king: my amendment now says receipts it should say revenues. i would amend it to change the word receipts to revenues, i think it's clear but in order to clarify it further. mr. enzi: my comments would have been similar to senator sanders and that would have been scary. mr. king: if i brought senator enzi and senator sanders together. mr. enzi: clerk will call the roll. clerk mr. portman. mr. too many mi. mr. johnson. ms. ayotte. mr. corker. mr. purdue. >> can i be recorded as aye.

caller: mr. sanders. ms. murray. mr. wyden. ms. stabenow. mr. warner. mr. marc lee. ms. baldwin. -- mr. merck lee. ms. waled bin. mr. kain. -- kaine. mr. king. >> mr. chairman how am i recorded? mr. enzi: to any wish to change their vote? caller: the yeas are 10, the nays are 12. mr. enzi: the amendment is defeated. next would be senator sessions and i think he's modified his amendment.

mr. sessions: with permission i'd like to modify more appropriately after the words benefit for aliens, i would ask to insert the words without legal status. i think that's a better way to phrase it and would ask my colleagues to support the amendment that would have a spending neutral reserve fund to prohibit illegal immigrants from qualifying for the refundable tax credit, a position that the inspector general of the united states treasury department has taken and ask that the treasury department fix on its own but was unable to do so, they say, they've asked congress to fix it and we're overdue in doing that. mr. enzi: opposition? senator stabenow. ms. stabenow: i want to indicate that we desperately need comprehensive immigration reform to address all these things. i think it's important that we

not penalize children who are here legally but i think it's important for the record to say that anyone who is not here legally cannot receive today the earned income tax credit, social security, food stamps, they tradition -- traditionally what would be called welfare programs, housing vouchers, the affordable care act and social security disability and i just think it's important because the implication has been that people are receiving services that are not here legally. i want to few put that in the record. i hope we'll focus together on comprehensive immigration reform. mr. sessions: but some are fraudulently using social security or i-10's. mr. enzi: it was a request from the i.r.s. that we be more specific. do you want a roll call vote? please call the roll. caller: mr. grassley. mr. sessions. mr. crapo.

mr. graham. mr. portman. mr. toomey. mr. johnson. ms. ayotte. mr. wicker. mr. corker. mr. perdue. mr. sanders. ms. murray. mr. wyden. ms. stabenow. mr. white house. -- mr. whitehouse. mr. warner. mr. merkley. ms. baldwin. mr. kaine. mr. king. mr. chairman. mr. chairman, the yeas are 12, the nays are 10. mr. enzi: the amendment is adopted. next is the sanders amendment. mr. sanders: senator too many mi hit the nail -- senator toomey hit the nail on the head when he said let's get rid of regulations so they can give directly to candidates. who do you think those senators

are going to help if you're elected because of the contributions of billionaires. i think enough is enough. we've got to overturn sints united, we need full disclosure when people put ads on television i would ask for a yes vote. senator enzi. senator toomey. mr. toomey: the ranking member gives little credit to the intellect of the voters. if congress employees were paid employees of millionaires that would be obvious to voters and they would be free to not elect someone who was an employee of billionaires. i don't know why we have so little confidence in the electorate. mr. enzi: do you want a roll call vote? please call the roll. k4r0eu7 mr. grassley. caller: mr. grassley. -- the clerk: mr. grassley. mr. sessions. mr. crepo.

mr. graham. mr. portman. mr. toomey. mr. johnson. ms. ayotte. mr. wicker. mr. corker. mr. perdue. mr. sanders. ms. murray. mr. wyden. ms. stabenow. mr. whitehouse. mr. warner. mr. merck lee. -- merkley. ms. baldwin. mr. kaine. mr. king. mr. chairman. the yeas are 10 the nays are 12. mr. enzi: the amendment fails. the next amendment, senator crapo's amendment. mr. crapo: i yield to senator warner on this. mr. warner: we should not be using the fees which should be going to support our housing industry as a piggy bank for other programs. it's rare to see we've got bankers, civil rights groups,

all aligned. s that fiscally responsible amendment and i urge passage. mr. enzi: any objection to a voice vote? seeing none. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. carried. next one is the murray amendment. ms. murray: this is the amendment that takes the deficit neutral reserve fund provided in section 307 and expands it to allow us to use it for drastically needed issues for our veterans and service members including providing additional job training programs, specialty services importantly caregiver support that i think we all know many of our veterans, aging veterans, need as well, allows them to stay in their homes and work with v.a.'s infrastructure needs which are dramatic and mental health care as well as providing fertility treatment for critically injured veterans who because of their injuries can no longer have family. i think it's important to expand the fund so we can address the

real needs of our service members. mr. ensteve: i'm encouraged -- mr. enzi: i'm encouraged by the ability of the reserve funds to provide for issues concerning our veterans. i ask for a yes vote. any opposition to a voice vote? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. passes. next one is the stabenow amendment. ms. stabenow: we're still working out some issues on that particular one, i'd ask to move to the end of the queue. mr. enzi: we'll move it to the end of the queue. ms. stabenow: i understand they're still working through some issues. if we don't do it here we'll do it on the floor. mr. enzi: you have one for

striking a section as well. your second one. ms. stabenow: we have budget reports on this resolution of anything that would add to the deficit but we see when it comes to the repeal of the affordable care act there is not a point of order added to that which is allowed under that. in fact, the affordable care act has reduced the deficit according to the c.b.o. it's very clear that repealing the affordable care act will actually increase the deficit and it's acknowledged in here by exempting a point of order on anything that increases the deficit as a result of the affordable care act. i think we need honesty in budgeting. if this budget repeals the affordable care act and all the services for 16.4 million men and women and children right now who are receiving health care for the first time maybe ever

and we know that repealing this will increase the deficit and we need to be honest about it. so this would strike the exception and continue a point of order as we do for every other part of the budget. mr. enzi: i think that will prohibit even getting some proficiencies so i ask for a no vote. i assume a roll call vote is desired. ms. stabenow: yes, please. mr. enzi: clerk will call the roll. the clerk. mr. grassley. mr. sessions, mr. crapo. mr. graham. mr. portman. mr. graham. mr. portman. mr. toomey. mr. johnson. ms. ayotte. mr. wicker. mr. corker. mr. perdue. mr. sanders.

ms. murray. mr. wyden. ms. stabenow. mr. whitehouse. mr. warner. mr. merkley. ms. baldwin. mr. kaine. mr. king. mr. chairman. mr. chairman, the yeas are 10, the nays are 12. mr. enzi: the amendment has failed. next, senator johnson's amendment. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. chairman. since 2010, 47 municipalities have declared bankruptcy. estimates of underfunded and unfunded liability in state and local pensions is is approaching $5 trillion system of this amendment simply prohibits the use of federal funds for bailing out those state and local governments, it sends a necessary and loud and clear cigna that hardworking american taxpayers from other states should not be asked to bail out those states and localities.

mr. enzi: opposition? >> i think that nobody is particularly interested or anxious to be bailing out anybody. but i think this is overly prescriptive. we don't know what may happen to a town or city in wisconsin or vermont or any place else. mr. sanders: i urge a no vote. mr. enzi: i suspect a roll call is required then. i call on the clerk -- the clerk: mr. grassley. mr. sessions. mr. crapo. mr. grahamful mr. portman. mr. toomey. mr. johnson. ms. ayotte. mr. wicker. mr. canner -- corker. mr. perdue. mr. sanders. ms. murray. mr. wyden. ms. stabenow. mr. whitehouse. mr. warner. mr. merkley. ms. baldwin. mr. kaine. mr. king. mr. chairman.

mr. chairman, the yeas are 15, the nays are 7. mr. enzi: the amendment is approved. senator warner on v.a. and law school clinics. senator warner. mr. warner: mr. chairman, this is the effort that i believe even senator graham would support that basically says, let's kick the v.a. -- urge the v.a. a little bit and i commend the great work senator murray and senator sanders and so many have done to engage with more law schools to create veterans law clinics to help lieu staunts cro process claims. doesn't cost the tax pay aerodime. hetches the law students, helps vet threarnings v.a. needs to be more engaged and being promotive

of this. mr. enzi: any opposition? that's a voice vote. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the amendment is accepted. next is the ayotte amendment on energy. ms. ayotte: i have an amendment that would address very important provisions on energy deficit neutral reserve fund on nrnl efficiency on providing assistance to those who are low income which is very important. especially with the winter we've had in new hampshire for those who are most in need and also federal support for the land and water conservation fund. but this fund will allow you to broadly look at energy efficiency and how we deal with making sure that we have strong energy but also protect our environment. mr. enzi: opposition?

voice vote. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. that's passed. next is senator baldwin. ms. baldwin: thanks, mr. chairman. this amendment would restore a point of order that was eliminated in the chairman's mark against reconciliation legislation that would increase the deficit or reduce a surplus and i want to yield to senator whitehouse to -- the balance of my time. mr. whitehouse: this may the most important deficit fighting vote we'll take today and i ask to be added as a co-sponsor. mr. enzi: all this does is take us back to 2008 and the way the committee ran. so i would ask for a no vote on this. please poll the committee. the clerk: mr. grassley. mr. sessions. mr. c crapo. mr. graham.

mr. portman. mr. toomey. mr. johnson. ms. ayotte. mr. wicker. mr. corker. mr. perdue. mr. sanders. mrs. murray. mr. wyden. ms. stabenow. mr. whitehouse. mr. warner. mr. merkley. ms. baldwin. mr. kaine. mr. king. mr. chairman. mr. chairman, the yeas are 10, the nays are 12. mr. enzi: the amendment has failed. the next one, senator portman's job training. mr. portman: this would create a deficit neutral reserve fund to reduce redundancy and enhance outcomes of federal job training programs. we talked earl earl about studies done on this we have 47 different programs other nine different departments and agencies and many of them are not subject to review.

44 of the 47 of them have been viewed as overlapping with one another. i hope for support on both sides. senator kaine and i are joining on this one as we did with the career and technical ones to ensure we have that trained work force to close this current skills gap that we have and get people back to work. mr. enzi: opposition? seeing none, sensing you're ready to vote, those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. that's passed. next is senator merkley's career and tech education. mr. merkley: this is a corollary to education, a stem program deficit neutral fund. stem programs are incredibly positive ingredient in schools

across the nation. to advance the learning and science -- in science, technology, engineering and mathematics and the potential to do more good by enhancing these programs. i hope we follow the model of having a voice vote as we did on the c.t.e. component earlier. mr. enzo: it is -- mr. enzi: it's my understanding you've amended this? mr. merkley: it has been amended, because it did cover stem and e.c.e. but e.c.e. was covered, so the words, and covering continuing education, have been struck on line two, so it's just stem education. mr. enzi: opposition? seeing none, those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. that's passed. remember if anyone wants a recorded no vote on the voice vote they can have that.

senator sessions asked to be recorded as no on the last vote. next is senator king's amendment. mr. king: this would help avoid the effects of climate change. this is very important in my state because of sea level rise, it's important in a numb of states because of drought shortages and water supply. mr. kaine: it will potentially help our communities avoid negative impacts if there can be infrastructure improvements to mitigate climate effects. mr. enzi: senator sessions. mr. sessions: it's been 10 years since we had a category three hurricane hit the united states, perhaps the longest in the last 100 years. dr. pilkey -- pilkey at colorado

university said hurricanes and tornadoes are down to a significant degree. many of the predictions that we've seen alarmists results of climate change, have not occurred. i just think we shouldn't be ratifying, passing legislation based on damages that might occur from climate change until we see those damages and i would oppose the amendment because if the sea levels rise and we need money we'll have to spend it. if it doesn't, we don't. mr. kaine: these are not prospective damages in virginia or elsewhere. they're current. flooding is already occurring in places around the hampton roads area. mr. enzi: i'm seeing a need for a recorded vote. mr. grass -- the clerk: mr. grassley. mr. sessions. mr. crapo. mr. graham.

mr. portman. mr. toomey. mr. johnson. mr. iayacht. mr. wicker. mr. corker. mr. perdue. mr. sanders. ms. murray. mr. wyden. ms. stabenow. mr. whitehouse. mr. warner. mr. merkley. ms. baldwin. mr. kain. mr. king. mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman, how am i recorded? i vote aye. mr. enzi: are there others who wish to change their vote? >> mr. chairman, i vote aye.

the clerk: the yeas are 15, the nays are 7. mr. enzi: that is passed. next. senator graham. on defense. mr. graham: this amendment pluses up the account it's justify set and the argument i made before is that the world in 2015 is dramatically different than it was in 2011 and what senator murray said about sequestration is true. it's affecting the department of f.b.i., the c.i.a. a lot of programs are affected but none more than the military and i asked leon panetta in september, 2011, if you pull the sequestration trigger as a nation, would it be like shooting yourself in the foot? he said no, it would be like shooting yourself in the head.

i've never seen more threats to our nation more safe havens, more terrorist organizations with more capability, more weapons, more desire to hit the homeland than i do now for this amendment at least -- so this amendment is at least a step to try to stop that. mr. enzi: opposition? mr. sanders: this country went to war in iraq and afghanistan under president bush. but we didn't pay for those wars. those wars will end up costing us between $3 trillion and $6 trillion. my republican colleagues tell us,my god, we've got to cut social security, medicare, medicaid education. the needs of the sick. because of the large deficit. and what this amendment does is use -- is use budget gimmickry to add another $38 billion to the deficit. if senator graham wants more money for the military that's a fair point of view. let's argue it out. but don't go through the process of budget gimmickry, add more

money to the deficit without the serious debate that we need. i fear very much that passage of this amendment lays the groundwork for another war to be unpaid for and i think that is a very, very bad idea. mr. enzi: sensing a need for the roll call vote. clerk will call the e-- will poll the committee. the clerk. mr. grassley. mr. sessions. mr. crapo. mr. graham. mr. portman. mr. toomey. mr. johnson. ms. ayotte. mr. wicker. mr. corker. mr. perdue. mr. sappeders. -- sanders. ms. murray. mr. wyden. ms. stabenow. mr. whitehouse. mr. warner. mr. merkley.

ms. baldwin. mr. kaine. mr. king. mr. chairman. mr. chairman, the yeas are 12, the nays are 10. mr. enzi: the amendment has passed. the toomey defense amendment. mr. toomey: if you voted no on that amendment i think you should be voting yes on mine. all my amendment does is attempt to safeguard that in the event additional funding occurs and the money is spent it doesn't permanently become part of -- part of the baseline. in the absence of my amendment, there's an increased likelihood that we have a $380 billion increase that's not offset and my objective, not to prevent the increase in defense spending but ensewer it's offset with nondefense spending. what my bill does mitigating circumstance amendment does, is -- any funds allocated if o.c.o. in 2017 above the amount in 2016 would be subject to a point of

order. it's a tool to diminish the risk that this becomes a permanent part of the baseline. mr. enzi: opposition? >> people can vote as they want -- mr. sanders: people can vote as they want but this is clearly an effort to undo the spending of the last amendment. i personally will vote no. mr. enzi: clerk will poll the committee. the clerk: mr. grassley. mr. sessions. mr. crapo. mr. graham. mr. portman. mr. toomey. mr. johnson. ms. ayotte. mr. wicker. mr. corker. mr. perdue. mr. sanders. ms. murray. mr. wyden. ms. stabenow. mr. whitehouse. mr. warner. mr. merkley. ms. baldwin. mr. kain. mr. king. mr. chairman. mr. chairman, the yeas are 12,

the yeas are 10. mr. enzi: the amendment is adopted. senator wyden. mr. wyden: chairman enzi, you're recognizing me to offer the medicaid amendment, is that right? mr. enzi: yes. mr. wyden: colleagues, i talked at some length before, this is about the well being of some of the most vulnerable people in american society. and that is older people who depend on long-term care facilities. 60% of nursing home residents eventually get to medicaid and we've long had a talk about a fresh abroach and long-term care policy. i've been particularly interested in approaches encouraged private savings but given the number of seniors that are moving past 80 at this point, there's a pretty good bet

that a lot of them are going to need medicaid assistance to cover long-term care. so i hope -- my hope is that this amendment will pass. i want to make it clear to colleagues that ranking democrat on the finance committee i'm very interested in bipartisan approaches to deal with both medicaid and medicare but i think this particular feature of the budget really puts at risk older people, their families grandparents, and i hope that we'll reject it. mr. enzi: the senate budget does improve medicaid and modernizes the program based on the chip model which has been successful and bipartisan. our budget didn't propose the policies described in the reserve fund and more importantly the finance committee will be responsible for writing legislation to improve medicaid and i know that the ranking member will have a major part in that. mr. wyden: i would only say in

brief rebuttal, i don't know how you get that level of medicaid savings without cutting medicaid long-term care service. i don't know how to do it. maybe other people have some way to proceed i don't know how to do it. mr. enzi: i'd ask for a no vote so we have flexibility. all time is expired. the clerk will poll the committee. the clerk: mr. grassley. mr. sessions. mr. crapo. mr. graham. mr. portman. mr. too many mi. -- mr. toomey. mr. johnson. ms. ayotte. mr. wicker. mr. corker. mr. perdue. mr. sanders. ms. mur -- -- ms. murray. mr. wyden. ms. stabenow. mr. whitehouse. mr. warner. mr. merkley. ms. baldwin. mr. kaine. mr. king. mr. chairman. mr. chairman, the yeas are 10, the yeas are 12.

mr. enzi: the amendment is defeated. senator crapo's amendment on choke point. mr. crapo: this is the amendment to terminate operation choke point, the effort to basically identify disfavored businesses in the united states totally legal businesses, but businesses disfavored by them and try to deprive them of access to financing in our financial system. one of those industries that's been identified as disfavors is the second amendment industry, the firearms and ammunition industry, but there are others. once they got caught with this, they said we'll eliminate our list of bad actors and now they're saying don't make us stop doing this operation because we can't stop fraud. the fact is they could zop fraud before and they can stop fraud in the future, we don't need to allow this operation to continue. mr. enzi: opposition? >> there are two examples of

what this has done. one is those breaking the law and violating payday loan contract. another is when free credit cards were given out over the phone to get bank numbers and money was stolen out of customer accounts. in one case in north carolina, $2 billion was stolen. these electronic transactions are wrong and we need a unit within justice to go after the predatory activity. mr. crapo: i remind you of what was said they said this will no in -- in no way. mr. merkley: i offered an amendment to sago against true predators. that has been turned down. but i think that is what we both agree should be done.

mr. enzi: the clerk will poll the committee. >> could i be added as co-sponsor to the amendment? mr. enzi: without objection. the clerk will poll the committee. the clerk: mr. grassley. mr. sessions. mr. crapo. mr. graham. mr. portman. mr. toomey. mr. johnson. ms. ayotte. mr. wicker. mr. corker. mr. perdue. mr. sanders. ms. murray. mr. wyden. ms. stabenow. mr. whitehouse. mr. warner. mr. merkley. ms. baldwin. mr. kaine. mr. king. mr. chairman. mr. chairman the yeas are 13 the nays are nine. mr. enzi: the amendment has been passed. next is senator whitehouse on disaster funding. mr. whitehouse: this is the climate change related deficit neutral reserve fund rather like

senator kain's we voted on. instead of related to military bases this is related to fema disaster money and i've already described it so i won't burden everybody's time further. i hope that this can get strong support. >> mr. chairman, his amendment says may include problems or disasters caused by human induced climate change. mr. sessions: but doesn't limit it to that, so i won't object, we can do it by voice vote i would just note again that according to expert testimony, environment and public works committee, droughts are not up. floods are not up. hurricanes are down substantially. tornadoes are down. and so we're looking forward to more evidence that will come out from the environmental protection agency. mr. enzi: the clerk will poll the committee. the clerk: mr. grassley.

mr. sessions: i'll take a voice vote. mr. enzi: oh. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. anybody want a recorded no, let the clerk know. it's been adopted. senator johnson. on reports. mr. johnson: this amendment again is to provide information, we worked with senator stabenow to require transparent reporting from the ongoing costs and savings to taxpayers of the patient protection and affordable care act. i ask that it be approved by voice vote. mr. enzi: opposition. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. passed. next is warn e-- warner amendment in conjunction with

senator ayotte. mr. warner: i ask for a voice vote. ms. ayotte: sounds great. mr. enzi: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. that's passed. next, the ayotte amendment on abuse. drug abuse. ms. ayotte: i just wanted to, this is a deficit neutral reserve fund to address haren. i would like to ask senator baldwin on as a co-sponsor and senator johnson as well and also senator toomey and also senator warner and anyone else who would like to be added on including senator kaine and senator king. senator merkley, senator sessions. i'm going to safely ask for a voice vote. >> could we get a recorded vote on this one? mr. enzi: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. that's passed. senator king.

mr. king: this is an amendment which requires the congressional budget tufse publish historic data in a projection of 110 years for tax expenditures. senator portman and senator warner are co-sponsor, i hope we doon this by voice vote. mr. enzi: opposition? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. that's passed. senator sessions. no medicare double counting. mr. sessions: yes. the c.b.o. has said that though the conventions of accounting may suggest otherwise taking money by cutting social security and medicare expenses and spending that on a different program cannot be counted twice and that's what we did in the ppaca passage. it's been done before on other circumstances, this is up with of the reasons we get into the long-term unfunded liability

situation that we're in today. if you'd reich to know exactly how it happened, we've got -- if you'd like to know exactly how it happened, we got more money for medicare when we cut medicare expenses, medicare loaned the government to the united states treasury they didn't give it to them. the government borrowed it. mr. enzi: opposition? senator wyden. mr. wyden: medicare savings and health reform both extend the life of the hospital insurance trust fund and reduce the federal budget deficit. the analogy i'd make is looking town this long table we have a room full of athletes. and this is no different than hitting a basket, scoring a goal or a touchdown. you add to your team's score, and you also improve your personal average. batting average, basketball percentage.

what have you. neither situation involves double counting. and i mentioned earlier this has been done by both sides of the aisle and i think we should reject this amendment. mr. enzi: all time has expired. i sense we need -- do we want a roll call vote? ok. poll the committee. the clerk: mr. grassley. mr. sessions. mr. crapo. mr. graham. mr. portman. mr. toomey. mr. johnson. ms. ayotte. mr. wicker. mr. corker. mr. perdue. mr. sanders. ms. murray. mr. wyden. ms. stabenow. mr. whitehouse. mr. warner. mr. merkley. ms. baldwin. mr. kain. mr. king. mr. chairman.

mr. chairman, the yeas are 10, the nays are 12. mr. enzi: could you repeat that? the clerk: the yeas are 10, the nays are 12. mr. enzi: it's been defeated. we have one more, the stabenow amendment, but it's been ruled that it could be corrosive to privilege of the resolution so i'll have to rule it out of order. for the information of all of my colleagues i plan to entertain one more round of amendments, i understand that my democrat colleagues have about 10 and we have one left. so it isn't necessary for everybody to offer all those unless they really feel a burning desire. after those are offered and debated we'll hold a final series of static votes and then move to report the resolution as amended. 10 on the democratic side and one on our side.

>> we have been working going back and forth on this question of an amendment to make sure we're protecting medicare from cuts. ms. stabenow: which is very important to do. we are going to keep working and see, i'm not sure what the resistance is to actually going on record to make sure we're protecting medicare but we're going to keep working and work with the parliamentarian and if we aren't able to do this here, we certainly will offer it on the floor. mr. enzi: certainly. we may as well start with your side. mr. sanders: i have not had much luck on bipartisan support so i'm going to try again. and i hope maybe, you know, do better on this one. mr. chairman, this amendment would create a deficit neutral reserve fund to fully audit the department of defense and the outrageous cost overruns and crackdown on the massive amounts of fraud perpetrated by defense

contractors. is everybody in this room -- as everyone in this room knows we spend approximately $600 billion a year on the defense department and yet the d.o.d. is the only major agency of government not to come forward with an audit. in 2001, interestingly, one day before 9/11, secretary of defense don rumsfeld said that the pentagon could not account for some $2.3 trillion in transactions. and yet 14 years later, the pentagon is still not audit ready. further, mr. chairman, according to a recent g.a.o. analysis, the pentagon's $1.4 trillion acquisition portfolio suffers from over $457 billion in cost growth which are cost overruns above original contractor

estimates. what i think everybody in this room knows is our military system, weapons system, after weapons system, there are huge cost overruns. further mor, there have been a lot of fraud associated with the defense contracting industry. frankly, virtually every major defense contractor in this country has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in fines and related settlements for fraud and misconduct over the past 20 years. so where we are right now is we have the largest agency of the federal government, the d.o.d., some $600 billion, huge cost overruns, unable to audit this very complicated agency. i think it's time for an audit and i would ask bipartisan support for this amendment. mr. enzi: there are audits that are being done. this amendment is in line with the initiatives laid out by the bipartisan views and estimates

letter from the senate armed services committee. so all agencies, including one the size of d.o.d. need to be committed to greater efficiency and reform. one of the things i did getting ready for the budget is to get a copy of one of the latee versions of how federal budgeting is supposed to happen and i think we have some things to clean up in our own yard as well. but i haven't seen the kind of financial statements that the government says that they're putting out. so we've got a lot of room to make some improvements in this area. senator ayotte. ms. ayotte: i'd like to be added as a co-sponsor, i've sponsored legislation to do this in the last telecongresses. soy commend the senator for -- so i commend the senator for have this. mr. grassley: we've held hearings on this. it's amazing to me, the defense department won't undergo an audit, they're going through a

process to show -- mr. johnson: they're showing that they can qualify to do an audit. wal-mart is over $400 billion large and they go through audit every year. i think you strike your tone of bipartisanship here senator. mr. enzi: the next amendment on your side? mr. sanders: ms. murray. ms. murray: i worked very hard to make sure the federal government meets its moral and legal obligations to clean up hanniford as well as similar sites throughout the couldn't thrism department of energy has the responsibility to uphold the legacy responsibilities of our federal government. these sites are the result of more than 50 years nuclear weapon research development and production from the manhattan project in world war ii. i applaud the increase in the budget request for $5.8 billion but it's $200 million less than last year's budget request and

still $43 million below what congress appropriated in f.y. 2015 omnibus. funding will be cut at nine of the 16 nuclear waste cleanup sites. i have been crystal clear with my expectation that the federal government meet its milestones at knew cheer waste sites in our country. and the administration under both democratic and republican control has failed to meet that threshold. this is of great importance to me as well as other senators who sit on this committee who also have nuclear waste cleanup sites in their backyard. i'm fighting for this funding so our cleanup sites get the critical work done and i urge the adoption of this amendment. mr. enzi: opposition? who has the next amendment. ms. murray: i have one more do you want me to offer it? my second amendment, we have been talking about sequester a lot. this budget process remain there's a very large gulf between our two parties when it comes to economic and fiscal priorities but i think it is

fair to say to one area of broad bipartisan agreement is that the across the board cuts that impact defense and nondefense investments are bad policies have got to be fixed. members of your party have said it members of my party have said it. it should be something we come together to address. i've offered one way to do that, building on the zhofse bipartisan budget act chairman ryan and i worked out two years ago. i'm offering another one that will allow taos raise the caps for this coming fiscal year equally for defense and nondefense in a way that both sides should find acceptable at the short-term -- as a short-term fix. mr. chairman, all we have to do is update your budget to account for the most recent congressional budget office projections and use those savings to increase the caps. that's all there is to this amendment. this budget is based on -- in front of us is based on outdated projections and the most recent projections include an additional $77 billion in

revenue other the next 10 years that means that merely using the most updated revenue prosection -- projections gives us $77 billion of extra savings built into this budget which is more than enough to offset reasonable increases in the caps for defense and nondefense for this -- for fiscal year 2016. it would not raise taxes. these numbers are simply what the congressional budget office already expects the tax code to generate. doesn't increase the debt in your budget. wouldn't cause procedural problems for either budget year and most importantly this solves a very serious budget problem that both parties want to resolve. so while i believe the best approach is -- over the long-term is by working together on responsible placement to those automatic cuts, i think we ought to take a stand and not lurch to another crisis this year and adopt this amendment and allow us to move forward to replace sequester if if -- for this year in rae responsible

way. mr. enzi: unfortunately this increases taxes to allow more spending. i think that we immediate -- what we need to do, as soon as we get an approved budget hopefully by april 15rks we can begin discussions on the budget control act itself which is a law not a resolution. all we're zoing a resolution here. ms. murray: this does not raise revenue it's based on c.b.o. projections. it doesn't raise any additional taxes whatsoever. >> mr. chairman, question for the patron. mr. chairman, may i have a question for the patron of the amendment? senator murray i raise this question -- raised this question yesterday and i want to make sure that this is the point i was raising yesterday that the budget prepared for this mark was prepared using january c.b.o. figures but if instead you use march c.b.o. figures you have both the revenue and expense projections have been updated.

mr. kaine: and that enables you to cover this without increase in taxes. mr. murray -- ms. murray: that's correct. mr. kaine: so this is more accurate. ms. murray: that's correct. mr. enzi: you want to have greater expenditure for one year and spend it over 10. ms. murray: it replaces sequestration. we're racing to another government shutdown and a very bad crisis that impacts our economy and impacts defense and nondefense. this allows our appropriations committee to start moving forward in a responsible way for this year. mr. sessions: but i see page two, it increases revenues, i have some hesitation on it. i know which budget baseline we wruse will be taken into consideration by the time we do conference at the -- mr. enzi: i know which budget baseline we use will be take intoon consideration by the time we do conference. mr. enzi: we'll start talking at

about 2:00, we'll have our first vote around 5:00 we'll be on this monday. ms. murray: great. i ask for a vote. >> i just wanted -- does this change the baseline? there's $77 billion -- ms. murray: c.b.o. made projections in january. they updated them in march. we take the c.b.o. projections from march current law, and it allows us to have that flexibility for us to be able to allow our appropriations committee, if we adopt this, move forward and sequester is replaced for this fiscal year. does not change the deficit level. >> sounds good but -- mr. enzi: who has the next amendment? senator stabenow. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. chairman. moving away from health care, to talk about another subject actually, it does relate to health but it relates to

cleanups when we have an oil spill. back in 2010 we had a terrible oil spill in michigan, the kalamazoo river. in fact the cost to clean it up was over $1 billion. and the oil was derived from tar sands. this tar sands is especially difficult to clean up. unfortunately, companies do not pay into the oil spill liability trust fund for oil derived from tar sands and so this amendment would subject oil derived from tar sands to the same oil spill liability fund and taxes as other types of oil. it would also permanently extent the -- extend the tax that expires in 2017 so oil companies would be paying for it rather than taxpayers, homeowners, and so on. finally it would make sure oil companies, it would make sure that they could not deduct the

cost of punitive damages when there is a judgment, a settlement against them resulting from an oil spill. right now taxpayers are subsidizing the costs of actually punishing a company that is acting intentionally or recklessly in causing an oil spill. so this would set up a deficit neutral reserve fund to equalize contributions to the oil spill liability trust fund from all oil sources, permanently extend the tax and eliminate the tax writeoffs right now that are applicable to settlements and judgments that are totally unfair from attacks payer's standpoint. -- from a taxpayer's standpoint. mr. enzi: opposition. >> mr. chairman could i add my name as co-sponsor to that amendment? mr. enzi: senator merkley would

be next. >> there's a legitimate argument and concern over the deductibility of punitive damages. i think that's being discussed. maybe not on committees. i'm not able to support the amendment. but i think it's worthy of serious discussion. that part of the amendment. ensens any other comments in opposition? if not, who has the next amendment? senator merkley, do you have an amendment? senator baldwin, do you have an amendment? ms. baldwin: thank you, mr. chairman. i have two. my final two. i'll try to get it into -- both of them into three minutes. how's that? the first one is baldwin

amendment regarding n.i.h. and biomedical research. i'm very concerned that budget cuts that are mandated by the budget control act and further cuts that we have before us in the budget resolution mark continue to put biomedical research at risk. a concern i know that many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle share. these policies are particularly devastating for our nation's young researchers who are increasingly discouraged from entering the field altogether and some are actually leaving the country to pursue their research. indeed n.i.h. director dr. collins, cautioned that we are putting an entire generation of scientists at risk. so, i ask my colleagues to support this amendment, to help ensure that our country really remains at the forefront of innovation of biomedical innovation, and also by supporting the next generation of innovative researchers.

mr. chairman my second amendment that i'd like to offer is regarding creation of a deficit-neutral reserve fund dedicated to investing in american manufacturing. very simply, the amendment creates room to continue making investments in our manufacturing sector. whether they be in work force training research and development, or public-private partnerships. as many of my colleagues on the committee know i come from a state where we are known for making things. in wisconsin we know that a strong manufacturing economy creates economic security for hardworking middle class families. this amendment seeks to support this powerful engine of innovation, whether it's through the manufacturing extension partnerships m.e.p., the national network for manufacturing innovation, or some future initiative like the one that senator coons and i

introduced yesterday, along with senator graham and ayotte on kess nating 25 -- on designating 25 universities as manufacturing universities. to help schools strengthen their engineeringing programs and meet the growing demands of the 21st century advanced manufacturing. so i would urge the committee to support this amendment and yield back my 23 seconds. mr. enzi: we could oppose this as being duplicative of already being in the budget, but i won't. other amendments? any other amendments? that wasn't 10. last call for amendments. >> you've made too many calls already. mr. enzi: that concludes amendments. we'll start going through the amendments on voting now. the first one to be the sanders d.o.d. audit. i think there was no opposition

to that one. so we'll voice vote. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. that one passes. next is the murray amendment. on nuclear waste. ms. murray: senator graham is the co-sponsor and i urge a voice vote. ensens -- mr. enzi: without objection. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. that passes.

ms. murray: i would ask unanimous consent that mr. merkley is the co-sponsor of the amendment we just passed. mr. enzi: i have two more here that we could do by voice, if that would be ok. ms. murray: i just want to add in merkley as a co-sponsor. mr. enzi: without objection, sure. we have the baldwin amendment for n.i.h. any further discussion? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. that one's passed. and then baldwin on american manufacturing. any further comments? seeing none, those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. that one passes.

we did the nuclear waste one already. yes, senator wyden. mr. wyden: i had to be out of the room and i'm the lead sponsor of this effort to audit the pentagon. i'm very pleased that we're doing it. i would just like to ask unanimous consent to be recorded as voting in favor of it. is that acceptable, mr. chairman? mr. enzi: certainly. mr. wyden: thank you. mr. enzi: since it wouldn't change the outcome of the vote, that would be pretty acceptable. ok. since we weren't able to give advance warning on when the time -- on what time the vote

would be, i have a couple who are missing who are in in her committee meeting who are hustling -- who are in another committee meetinging who are hustling back over here now. i'd ask your indulgence. ms. murray: i would ask unanimous consent that when they get here they're allowed to vote if their vote doesn't change the outcome. mr. enzi: what if it does change the outcome? ms. murray: then it changes the outcome and we'd have to -- have we done all the voice votes, mr. chairman? mr. enzi: yes. we have two votes left and then final vote. ms. murray: so which amendments are left to vote on? mr. enzi: your sequester replacement and the oil spill cleanup. ms. murray: and final passage? mr. enzi: and final passage, yes. >> for the record, i would object to the unanimous request consent. mr. enzi: which unanimous consent request? mr. sessions: the one that senator murray just offered. ms. murray: i'm assuming we have three votes left and we'll

be done, correct? are you sit insurgenting a time of 5:10 for us to vote on the final amendments? i think people are trying to figure out when they're going to be able to get flights. we're just asking for -- mr. enzi: i hope it doesn't take that long for them to get from that committee to here. ms. murray: can we get clarification from staff so that everybody's here? that would be very helpful. mr. enzi: one's here.

>> mr. chairman, while we're waiting, can i ask unanimous consent to be added as a co-sponsor to senator murray's amendment, number 45, on the nuclear waste cleanup? mr. enzi: without objection.

>> mr. chair while we're waiting, could i be added as a patron to senator murray's budget cap amendment? co-sponsor. mr. enzi: without objection. my next question is going to be what your donation was going to be. [laughter] i'm sure she has several levels that you could be a participant. let me ask if it's ok, we're missing one person on each side.

when they get here, they should be allowed to record their vote unless there's an objection. who are we missing? oh snork corker -- oh, senator corker. the capital contingent i think is getting here -- the capitol contingent i think is getting here. senator white how's and senator corker were in -- whitehouse and senator corker were in the same meeting.

ok. i'll call on senator myrrh >> then for her -- murray then for her 30 seconds on the sequester. ms. murray: i'll take less than that. this is a budget sequester amendment that takes the current c.b.o. projection to allow us to be able to replace sequestration for this year. it's responsible and it gets us back to a very dangerous point where we could save some serious consequences without this -- pay some serious consequences without this amendment. ensens i thought it was an increase in taxes and spending and page 2 it does say increasing federal revenues -- page two it does say increasing federal revenues. so, we will be taking advantage of the baseline changes that are -- by the time that we get

to conference, that would be the normal time for doing that. since we just got them. we'll use -- i'd ask that you vote no. call on the clerk. mr. grassley: no. mr. sessions: no. mr. crapo: no. mr. graham: no. mr. portman: no. mr. toomey: no. mr. johnson: no. yacht yacht no. mr. wicker: no. cork cork no. mr. perdue: no. mr. sanders: yes. ms. murray: aye. mr. wyden: aye. ms. stabenow: aye. mr. whitehouse: aye. mr. warner: aye. mr. merkley: -- ms. baldwin: aye.

mr. kaine: aye. mr. king: aye. mr. enzi: no. the clerk: the anyways are 10, -- the ayes are 10, the nays are 12. mr. enzi: the next is the stabenow amendment on oil spills. ms. stabenow: this is really a taxpayer amendment to say, if you have an oil spill, some tar sands, that the oil companies should be payinging for that. the cleanup. the oil spill liability trust fund should have those types of spills covered by companies paying into it. we permanently extend the tax and eliminate tax benefits that apply when there's a settlement or a judgment because of oil spills and there's punitive damages. if somebody is found to be reckless, the taxpayer should not pick up the tab. i would ask for a yes vote. mr. enzi: i would ask for a no vote. this is overly prescript timb and it's issue an issue that needs to be deliberated at length in the finance committee

and i know that senator wyden has been here to hear the discussion on it and so i'm sure that it will be. i don't think it's the intent of anybody to give people a special tax break on fines or penalties. so i'd recommend a no vote. poll the committee. mr. grassley: no. mr. sessions: no. mr. crapo: no. mr. graham: no. mr. portman: no. mr. toomey: no. mr. johnson: no. yotyot aye. mr. wicker: no. corker no. mr. perdue: no. mr. sanders: aye. ms. murray: aye. mr. wyden: aye. ms. stabenow: aye. mr. whitehouse: aye. mr. warner: aye. mr. merkley: -- ms. baldwin: aye. mr. kaine: aye. mr. king: aye. mr. enzi: no. the clerk: mr. chairman, the yeas are 11, the nays are 11. mr. enzi: dies on a tie.

we're now to that final part. i move that the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2016 be reported favorably. i'll call on the clerk to poll the committee. mr. grassley: aye. sessions aye -- mr. sessions: aye. mr. crapo: aye. mr. graham: aye. mr. portman: aye. mr. toomey: aye. mr. johnson: aye. yacht yacht aye. mr. wicker: aye. mr. perdue: aye. mr. sanders: no. ms. murray: no. mr. wyden: no. ms. stabenow: no. mr. whitehouse: no. mr. warner: no. mr. merkley: no. ms. baldwin: no. mr. kaine: no. mr. king: no. mr. enzi: aye. the clerk: mr. chairman, the ayes are 12, the nays are 10. mr. enzi: the resolution

passes. and i'd like to thank all the members for their tremendous cooperation getting this done. it is important that if you have any necessary documents to be filed, it has to be done tomorrow. in order that the resolution can be brought to the senate floor next week. the deadline for submitting additional or minority views is no later than noon tomorrow. any views must have a member signature. and we'll begin debate at 2:00 on monday. oh, yeah. staff can make technical and conforming changes. one can add the numbers for the facts and figures. complete the charts. >> gavel it out, sir. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]

>> so, as you just saw, the senate budget committee just approved its budget plan for fiscal year 2016. the senate budget repeals the affordable care act, it would balance the budget within a decade, by cutting spending on medicaid, food stamps and other domestic programs. the budget does not raise taxes. the budget resolution is expected to be debated on the senate floor next week. possibly as early as monday. when the full senate begins debate on the budget, live coverage of course on our companion network c-span2.

>> meanwhile, on the other side of the capitol, the house of representatives today approved a resolution disapproving of national labor relations board regulation issued last year on union election rules. if the president were to sign the resolution, the regulation would be repealed. but the white house has issued a veto threat against that measure. the house also debated legislation dealing with congressional committee funding. the house is not in session tomorrow. next week the house is expected to take up the republican budget plan for fiscal year 2016. right now here on c-span, a look at some of that house

debate on the labor union election rules. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on s.j.res. 8. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. kline: mr. speaker i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to consume. mr. kline: thank you mr. speaker. i rise today in strong support of s.j.res. 8. in just a few short weeks, a regulatory scheme that many americans never heard of will become a reality in almost every private workplace across the country. . today workers and employers rely on a fair process for union elections. under the current process, employers have time to raise concerns and more importantly time to speak with their employees about union representation. under the current system, workers have the opportunity to gather the information they need

to make the best decision for their families. but unless congress acts, mr. speaker, that will all change. under the guise of streamlining union elections, the national labor relations board is imposing draconian changes that will undermine the rights of workers, employers, and unions have long enjoyed. the board's rule arbitrarily limits the amount of time employers have to legally prepare for the election, and it denies workers a reasonable opportunity to make informed decisions about joining a union. the rule also delays answers to important questions, including the voter eligibility. until after the election. which means the integrity of the election results will be compromised for a single ballot is cast. to add insult to injury, the board's rule will also force employers to provide union organizers with their employee's personal information. including email addresses phone numbers work schedules, and home addresses.

instead of advancing the plan to help stop union intimidation and coercion, the board is actually making it easier for labor bosses to harass employees and their families. are there times when delays occur under the current system? of course. but delay is the exception not the rule. in fact, right now the median time between the filing of election petition and the election is 38 days. yet under the board's new rule, a union election could take place in as little as 11 days. 11 days. this is a radical rewrite of labor policies that have served our nation's best interest for decades. unfortunately this is what we have come to expect from the national labor relations board. let's not forget, this is the same federal agency that tried dictating where a private employer had to run its business. this is the same agency restricting workers' right to secret ballot election. this is the same agency ignoring the law by asserting its jurisdiction over religious

institutions. this is the same agency tying employers and union red tape and empowering labor leaders to gerrymander our nation's workplaces. this is a federal agency that is simply out of control. and it is our responsibility to do something about it. this resolution, which i am proud to sponsor along with senator lamar alexanderer -- alexander, invokes congress' authority under the congressional review act to block the nlrb's election rule and anything substantially like it. if the board or my democratic colleagues want to pursue responsible reforms to improve the union election process, stain ready to work together on that effort. but if you believe employers should be free to speak to their employees during a union organizing campaign, then support this resolution. if you believe workers should be free to make an informed decision about whether to join a union, then support this resolution. if you believe we should protect rather than threaten employee privacy, then support this resolution. and finally if you believe

workers, employers, and union leaders deserve a fair election process, then reject the board's ambush election rule by supporting this resolution. i encourage my colleagues to stand with america's workers and job creators by voting yes on s.j.res. 8, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota reserves his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for as much time as he wishes to use. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to s.j.res.le, the congressional review act resolution of disapproval that we are considering today would undo the nlrb's election rule. the national labor relations board -- election rule is promulgated to make the election process more efficient and fair. the current process to hold an election on whether to form a union is badly broken. after workers have filed a petition to hold an election, bad actors can use frivolous litigation to stall an election

for months, even years. election delays can provide opportunities for unscrupulous employers to engage in threats, coercion, intimidation of workers. these plays can be exploited, to violate the workers' rights, including firing pro-union workers threatening to close the plant if the workers choose to vote a certain way. we all know that the sanctions against violations are insufficient to deter the unscrupulous activities, including priring pro-union employees. researchers from the center for labor research and education at berkley -- berkeley, bound the longer the delay the more likely the employer was to engage in illegal conduct and violate its employees rights. the rule would help prevent the illegal intimidation and coercion of workers. now, mr. speaker, this regulation provides targeted solutions to the specifically

identified problems. the rule brings into the 21st century the updating of rules involving transmission of documents and communications, allowing you to use email and electronic communication rather than paper. it will enable the board to better fulfill its responsibility to protect employees' rights by barely, accurately, and quickly resolving issues of representation. in many cases the rule simplifies and standardizes practices that have been common in regions all over the country already, or reflects existing practices used in civil actions. the rule does not change substantive law involving elections, it just makes sure that you can have a timely election. these modest updates provide workers and employees with the reasonable time to consider unionization while preventing unreasonable delay by bad actors mr. speaker, this resolution isn't going to go very far.

the administration has already issued a statement of administration policy that i'd like to quote from. it says that the board's modest reforms will help simplify and streamline private sector union elections, thereby reducing delays before workers can have a free and fair vote on whether or not to form or join a union. it goes on to say it will give workers greater voice. it can help ensure that the link is restored between hard work and opportunity, and that the benefits of the current economic recovery are more broadly shared. it says that the national labor relations board representation case procedures rule helps to level the playing field for workers so that they can more freely choose to have -- make their voice heard. in so doing it will help us build an economy that gives greater economic opportunities and security for middle class families, and those working to join the middle class. the it concludes, mr. speaker

that if the president were -- it concludes, mr. speaker, that if the president were presented with h.j.res. 8, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the resolution. mr. speaker, we ought to spend more time instead of working on this resolution and wasting time on this resolution, we should be addressing job creation, stagnating wages, and economic inequality, and working to improve opportunities for americans rather than considering this resolution. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: somehow i'm not surprised that the obama administration supports the administration's national labor relation board actions. at this time i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee on work force protection, the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. walberg: thank you mr. chairman.

and mr. speaker. i hesitate to say it this way, but the fact of the matter is that the nlrb is trading a solution to -- treating a solution to a problem that does not exist. by wholly changing the union election process through their new ambush election rule. this rule, if left unchecked, restricts the right of employers to speak to their employees during the organizing campaign. it cripples, it cripples the rights of workers to make an informed decision. it denies all stakeholders access to a fair process. isn't that what we are about? this change is meant to weaken employers and employees who simply want a fair and just process that gives ample time for deliberative review and discussion and decisionmaking. furthermore, the ambush election rule completely disregards the

promise of neutrality, the nlrb is mandated to uphold. the nlrb should serve as an impartial arbiter of labor disputes, and i urge my colleagues to join the senate in passing s.j.res. 8, which will stop these harmful and unjust actions. committed by the nlrb and preserve fair election policies which have been in place for decades. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from maryland the democratic whip, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. scott. ladies and gentlemen of the house, i rise in very strong opposition to this resolution.

and i urge every one of my members to oppose this resolution. we considered a paycheck fairness act and kickoff bill which said if the unions got signatures of a certain percentage that they could move ahead and be organized subject to an election. there was a hue and cry about that was undemocratic. that there ought to be a requirement for an election. a number of people came into my office and i said, well i we can accommodate that. we'll require to make sure that as every one of us can do, you can get the names of the voters you can get their addresses you can even get their history of voting. and you can perhaps call them on the phone. we can all do that. in elections.

but the fact of the matter is and everybody on this floor knows it procedurally so many employers who do not believe that they are going to prevail take the steps of delaying and delaying and delaying. they want elections tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow. mr. speaker, what the nlrb is trying to do with this rule is to make sure that there is an election. that it is fair. and that it will be held in a timely fashion. i hope this house defeats this bill. it would prevent the national labor relations board from implementing the rule if promulgated in december to modernize worker representation elections.

but there's a near of elections, and the fear of the elections is the majority of employees will say yes, i want to have a better voice. this is a case once again, of the republican majority seeking to roll back the hard-earned rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively for better wages and benefits. that's not an assertion. that is demonstrably proved in state after state after state over the last few years in which republicans have taken control, and their first item of agenda -- of the agenda has been to undermine workers' rights. when workers organize for higher wages and benefits like health insurance, retirement savings, and affordable childcare it opens doors of opportunity for workers and their families to secure a place in our middle class. we know our middle class is shrinking. we know the middle class is having a very tough time.

may i have one additional minute? mr. scott: i yield an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: according to a 2013 report by center for american progress, the decline of union membership between the 60's and today correlates to the decline of the middle class. when we have strong unions and workers' rights protections the middle class does better. and workers who are not unionized benefit from the ripple effect of rising wages. let's defeat this bill. and i think mr. kline, the chairman of this committee, has said that he would sit down with mr. scott and come with a bipartisan bill, which this is not which will do what all of us say we think is fair have elections. have elections where both sides -- of course the employer always has access to the voter in this

case -- and do something for the american worker and for business which will put us on a steady path to growing the middle class and making sure that workers are treated as they ought to be, with the dignity and respect and ability to support their families that they they need. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield one minute to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from california, mr. mccarthy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i always find it interesting to listen to the debate. you know this bill is about elections. everybody in this body has an election. but everyone in this body knows when their next election is going to be held and how much time they have to campaign.

so much so that we have rules on this floor when we cut off communication months in advance so you can campaign. i listened with interest to the minority whip speak on this floor. his support for something different than this bill does. i wonder if he would have and if he cared so much about the nlrb was doing if he would apply those exact same rules to his own election? would he care to not know when it's going to be and when it's called he's got 11 days to campaign? i think his speech would be different. so why are we asking the rules for us to be different for every other worker across this country. you know, the root of representation is to work for the interest of those you represent. everyone in the house knows that. and unions as representative bodies should exist for the benefit of the workers. but i don't think anyone disagrees that it's the workers,

not the unions, who know what's best for themselves. workers are the best judge of whether they want to support union political activities or even if they want to join a union at all. joining a union is a big choice. but to make an informed decision, workers need time. to decide what's best for them and their families. and they shpt -- and they shouldn't be pressured or rushed. so if unions really care about workers, if they're confident that their benefits of the unions outweigh the costs, they'll give the workers as much time as they immediate. that's the irony of the recent decision by the national labor relations board. to allow unions to call rush elections to ambush employees and employers ambush elections don't help workers. instead they bully workers to accepting unionization as fast as possible. that's not pro-worker. that's pro-union. and there's a big difference.

and what make this is situation worse is that ambush elections will soon be forced on workers, not by an act of congress, but unelected bureaucrats at the nlrb. that's an affront to the separation of powers that this country was based upon. so here in congress, mr. speaker, we're taking action. as our senate colleagues have already voted to do, we're going to use the congressional review act, send a resolution straight to the president's desk that blocks anti-workers an antibusiness rule. now i know the president has already threatened to veto this resolution. but i actually hope he'll change his mind. because what does the president want to fight for? does he want to fight for the work her does he want to fight for the small business, the jobs? ambush elections don't help workers. they don't help employers and they don't help unions. and no public official, not any

member of this house and especially not the president should ever support rules that allow special interests to strong arm the hardworking american people. mr. speaker, nobody in this house should support a rule about an election they wouldn't put upon themselves. and i don't know one member of this house that would sit back and say somebody can call an election and you only have 11 days to campaign. i'd like to hear somebody vote for that on this floor and ask to be held to the same standard they're trying to hold every -- every other worker in this nation. the speaker pro tempore: the jet yields back. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: i yield to the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. polis: thank you, mr.

speaker. where to begin. in hearing the majority leader's remarks and talking about fair elections, how is it fair if only one side has access to the phone numbers and email addresses and not the other side? can any of us imagine running in our campaigns where only we are or only our opponent, can call or write emails to the voters? that doesn't make any sense. talking about 11 days, again that's fictitious. this rule is about the one in 10 cases that take over 100 days. we heard testimony about them lingering on days and days. and the longer it takes, there's a direct and causal relationship to illegal behavior. the election rules the nlrb has implemented will help expedite this process to help ensure it's done in accordance with the law. it modernizes our antiquated system to help workers. these will set up a fair system so bad actors that needlessly debay ley and abuse the

electoral system for the sole purpose of trying to coerce employees through mandatory meetings, threats and firings won't be rewarded for their bad behavior of -- behavior this isn't just some far-fetched idea. one in so cases take over 100 days. now why would delaying union election at every turn be a bad thing? during that delay workers are often forced into rooms, receive threats, are bombarded with texts and emails from the employer, from one side in the election but the other side of the election, absent these rules doesn't have access to text or phone. we should be focused on creating good jobs, not the stroying them and growing the middle class, not shrinking it. i urge my colleagues to vote no and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado yields back, the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: i'd like to yield two minutes to the quelt from south

carolina, mr. wilson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman veck nighed for two minutes. mr. wilson: thank you, chairman kline for yielding. i appreciate the chairman's leadership on this issue and i'm grateful to be a co-sponsor of this legislation. as a member of the house education work force subcommittee on health, employment, a-- labor and pensions i'm concerned that the national labor relations board late etc. rule, referred to as the ambush rule, and i stand in strong support of s.j.res. 8. the national labor relations board is to force elections. it will compel employers to provide personal information about their employees such as names address, telephone number and email addresses this will violate the privacy of workers while recusing the informed decision period. to add insult to injury, the rule does not limit or dictate what unions can do with this sensitive information.

i'm pleased that south carolina is a right to work state. union membership is not a requirement of employment in our state, it's based on freedom of choice. i'm grateful we have fought as a state to give our employees and job creators the flexibility to choose what's best for them. south carolina has successfully opposed a rogue nlrb when the nlrb tried to block 100 jobs. with the governor -- with the help of governor niki haley and our jarts we stopped the nlrb and over 7,000 jobs have been created. s.j.res. will express our strong disapproval of the national labor relations board rule and ensure a fair process. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: i'm pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from florida, the ranking member of the subcommittee on work force protection, mrs. wilson two minutes.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. wilson: thank you, ranking member scott. mr. speaker, the congressional review act is yet another attack on employees' rights to organize and to limit the national labor relations board. the nlrb should have the ability to safeguard those rights and protect our nations work -- our nation's workers from unfair labor practices. it is outrageous that the rights of employees are attacked, particularly at a time when we have a jobs deficit a shrinking middle class and are still struggling to recover from the great recession. the nlrb has made modest attempts to modern its its elections procedures and reduce unnecessary litigation and delay in the election process. these are commonsense fixes that should not be controversial. the move would freeze in place

the board's current election procedure. the board would be prohibited from adopting rules to use new technology oor modernize its procedures. the nlrb is an expert agency and should be trusted to determine the appropriate use of electronic voting or rules to safeguard ballot secrecy. furthermore, i'm not aware of any other government agency that has to seek congress' permission before modernizing its rules for voting that takes place under its jurisdiction. this -- dismantling the nlrb would only serve to weaken, undermine, and jeopardize the economic security of the middle class. it is bad for business, bad for families, and bad for our economy. in fact, the national labor relations board is the last line

of defense for workers. we shouldn't be attacking our nation's employees. we should be supporting them investing in them, and protecting them. let's come together to create jobs, protect the middle class and make the investments we need to grow our economy. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back to mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yield back. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you mr. speaker. now i'd like to turn to a new member of the committee, someone who has been actively engaged in the measure -- in the major debates since he walked into this body, the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. russell, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. russell: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, labor relations are vital to the smooth operation of business and commerce. in the culture of our republic, americans are raised to expect to have their say in everything

from school room elections to choosing the president of the united states. it is in our d.n.a. to have a choice. to inform that choice we expect free speech, we can ask questions, gain information, and make wise decisions. this is why the recently finalized rule by the national labor relations board is so egregious. it is against that american spirit. under this rule, long-standing policies that allow employers and employees to guide how they relate through unions has been deeply damaged. companies could have as little as 11 days, or employees in relating to the companies, as little as 11 days to make a choice that could drastically affect their career and the health of the business that they reply lye on to put bread on the table. employers would only have a

seven-day period to obtain counsel, set parameters and are even restricted in contacting and discussing issues with their employees. they are prohibited from making any changes after that seven-day period based on new information that they may acquire. further, the privacy and safety of workers is placed in jeopardy by a swift ambush election process imposed by these rules that could put their employment in jeopardy. this resolution stop this is. it restores policies that have guided labor relations for decades. it upholds the right of american workers to gain information to make choices without draconian strongarm pressure tactics that harm the worker and stifle american free intervise. this body was founded, mr. speaker, on the spirit of promoting the general welfare and ensuring domestic tranquility for our nation. passage of s.j. 8 aids this by

stopping and blocking the strong arm tactics of the national labor relations board and the american people are counting on us to do that job. i yield become my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: thank you mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from oregon, a member of the committee on education and the work force, ms. bonamici, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. ms. bonamici: i rise in opposition to senate joint resolution 8, an unnecessary partisan attack on hardworking americans that will interfere with the rights of workers to an expeditious election on union representation. america's middle class workers should be free to decide if they want an election. unfortunately, the current process can be mired in lit fwation and in some cases workers waiting for an election have faced interference or intimidation from outside groups. the nlrb's rules safeguards the ability to have workers to choose whether to be recognized

by a union without confronting unnecessary delays. it makes little sense why they'd want to get in the way of americans. workers who ask for an legs on union representation. it's also unreasonable to assume that employers many of which have sophisticated legal teams, are going to be caught flat footed. there's no ambush here. there was a long period for contacts, it's now unfir to use this by getting rid to have rule. the resolution is an ill-advised attempt to silence american workers and i urge my colleagues to vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: i'd like to yield to another new member of the committee, someone who has also been engaged since the day he walked in the gentleman from georgia, mr. allen, two minutes.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. . mr. allen: thank you, mr. chairman i'm always interested when we are talking about workers and i hear that people want to talk about what's best for workers. i tell you that i am a new member of congress, and i've had the privilege the past 30 years of my life to give people the privilege to have a good job. that's one of the greatest privileges of my life. we all want to do what's best for those folks who are sacrificing for us. we appreciate them. we appreciate their efforts. and that's why i rise to support s.j.res. 8, to demonstrate disapproval of congress of the national labor relations board's ambush election rule. to protect our workers. a few weeks ago the subcommittee

on health employment, labor, and pensions, which i am a member, held a hearing on this very issue. we learned that this nlrb rule is not only unprecedented, it undermines the rights of both workers and employees and creates more challenges for businesses when our economy can least afford it. the expert testimony was from those who have been engaged in labor relations for quite a long time. with tremendous experience. and their testimony provided comments about just how troubling such a threat to the privacy of workers and their families as employers would be required to disclose the names addresses, phone numbers, and emails of employees to the nlrb, then to the union. this rule is misguided and the

nlrb has no business in rushing to advance its own agenda. we need to protect fairness in the workplace, and that's why i call on my colleagues to support s.j.res. 8. i am proud to say that i am from the state of georgia a right to work state -- could i -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. allen: in the state of georgia we have created almost 300,000 jobs since 2006. i'm proud to say we've got the finest workers in america. and i want those workers to have the freedom to make their decisions and not the nlrb. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from wisconsin, a member of the committee on education and the work force, mr. vow can, two minutes.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from is recognized for two minutes. >> i am a small business owner and a union member. i have a union business. the disapproval of the nlrb rule under the congressional review act is an extreme move that would roll pack hardworking americans' rights to a fair and timely election on union representation. this rule modernizes communications and protects workers from dishonest employers. mr. pocan: when this law was written, emails and iphones didn't exist. it simply adds them to the list of what's available to contact people about joining a union. and second, it creates a fair, modern workplace election process that elections can be done in a timely manner. the current process has long been vulnerable to manipulation delay, and drawn out legal maneuvering by some unscrupe pew luss employers. the reality of today -- unscrupulous employers. the reality in today's workplace

is employers still hold all the cards. a fewp bad actor employers can delay a vote by intimidating employees. they already have the phone numbers, emails and home addresses. let's face it, what's more intimidating? getting an email or saying you know where someone lives? the bottom line this isn't about the nlrb rule. this is about a process we see across the country attacking hardworking americans. whether it's through so-called right to work laws or preventing the nlrb from updating the union election process, this is more evidence that the majority party is out to hurt the very hardworking americans who want the ability to form a union. this has a substantial impact on the lives. workers covered by collective bargaining agreement are paid more on average than those not covered and more likely to have health care retirement, and paid leave benefits than nonunion workers. i would strongly urge us to vote against this political maneuvering message. the speaker pro tempore: the gent