on thursday, the ranking member of the house chris van hollen and other democratic members voiced their opposition to the budget plan. they held a press conference. it is about half an hour. rep. van hollen: i thank all of you very much for joining us. we're just coming from a meeting that representative kathy caster and representative michelle lujan grisham and i had with many of the organizations that represent americans across the country who are going to be hit hard by the republican budget that passed out of the budget committee this morning. you know, it wasn't that long ago -- in fact, right after the last election -- that speaker boehner and the republican senate leader, mitch mcconnell wrote in an op-ed piece that they were going to start looking out for the middle class. that's what they said. they were worried about wage

stagnation. that's what they said, that that he recognized people were working hard but feeling like they weren't getting ahead. that's what they said. problem is that their budget makes it much harder on working families around the country. in fact, it will make life more difficult. it will make it harder for people to get ahead. and i think it is important to look at what it actually does. one of the things it does is greenlights, paves the way, for the romney-ryan tax cut plan for the very wealthy. again, that plan would drop the top tax rates for millionaires by a full one-third. so if you're already doing great, the republican budget is good for you. but everybody else gets those tax breaks at the expense of everybody else in the country. and the groups who are

represented here today know what the impact will be. so it actually raises taxes on working families. they get rid of the higher education tax credit all together. gone. they get rid of the bump-up for the child tax credit. they get rid of the bump-up for the earned income tax credit. and of course, they wipe out all the affordable care act tax credits that help people get affordable health care. so they make life much more difficult for working families. for students, they actually cut from pell grants which help lots of students afford to go to college, and then they increase the cost of student loans for students by starting to charge interest for them in college. so students who are working hard to try to get education and are already saddled with big debt with get even bigger debts. and seniors, prescription drug costs will go up immediately. they'll immediately have to pay more co-pays for preventive

health services. and their medicare premiums will go up if the republicans are serious about really repealing all of the affordable care act. so again, a great budget if you're already on top of the economic ladder. but for everybody else in america, it's going to make it harder to get ahead. it's going to be more middle class squeeze, more squeeze on working families, and i'm really pleased to be here with my colleagues and you're going to hear from kathy caster who's just been a great advocate on all these issues for working families. but also making sure that we invest in our future. and this republican budget disinvests in america's future -- in our kids, in our innovation, in modernizing our infrastructure. without further ado, cathy caster. rep. cathy caster: thank you chris. i want to thank ranking member van hollen for his advocacy on behalf of all american families

and businesses. the economy's getting better but this republican budget puts the economic recovery at risk. look at what's happened just over the past few years with democratic leadership in the white house. unemployment is low. it's down about 5.5%. you've got low gas prices that we know is going to put over $700 in the pockets of american families on average. and if you're lucky enough to be in the stock market, you're doing very well. people's retirement accounts are healthier. but the republican budget puts all of that at risk because it is a dark vision for the future that says to everyone across america that you're going to have to work harder for less. and here are a few examples because we, even though unemployment is lower, we've got to do better with paychecks, with take-home pay and higher wages. here are a few examples.

when you think about how do we boost wages across america. i had an amendment last night to make sure that america keeps its number one position globally in medical research. it was an amendment that said it's time to answer the call of dr. francis collins at nih. the journal of american -- the american medical association said congress, unless you act soon, asia -- the asian countries are going to eat our lunch. they're going to become the world leaders in medical research. the republicans rejected additional investments in medical research. we anticipate that that is going to cost us 1300 grants to our young talented scientists and it is going to put families more at risk at a time when we've got to keep working for the cures for cancer, heart disease, alzheimer's and those kind of conditions. here's another example. we're facing another cliff when it comes to transportation and infrastructure.

at the end of may, we are going to run out of money andin the highway trust fund. although we hear lip service from our republican colleagues oh, we're for transportation and infrastructure, the republican budget has no plan whatsoever. we predict it will result in about a $190 billion cut over future years in how we invest in transportation and infrastructure. in my home state of florida, those are higher wage jobs. the engineers, the folks who build our roads and airports and seaports. the republicans will put us at greater risk for our economic future. another example, finally, is what they do to education. all across the country right now, there are high school students waiting to hear where they are accepted to college. that's going to come out over the next few weeks. but at the same time, the republicans are offering a

budget that is going to dash the hopes of students across this country because they cut the pell grant so drastically, cut the american opportunity tax credit, make it harder to get a student loan. so that's a recipe for a bleaker future. it's going to put the economic recovery at risk. they are going to ask people to work harder for less. it's a sham and it really is a risk to america's economic future. rep. van hollen: thank you cathy. and thank you for being there in the future all last night and into the morning. now we're going to hear from congresswoman michelle lujan grisham who was an expert on health care issues long before she came to the congress. she headed up the new mexico department of health. she's going to talk about the impact of this budget on health care from medicare to medicaid both of which take big hits in this budget. rep. grisham: thank you. thank you, chris. i always have to start with

lowering all the microphones or i got to find a way to raise my stature before the podium. good afternoon. i really appreciate that you're here because what you're hearing from us and you'll hear in a moment from other experts that are serving middle class families and working on effective policies that do really two things. one with be make sure the protections for middle class americans -- we're talking seniors and kids and hard working families and the disabled -- but also in addition to those protections, make sure that we're investing so, for example, those seniors with their retirement income continue to spend in this economy in a way that's good for all of us and continues to bolster economic growth. this budget doesn't do any of that. in fact, over and over again last night and early this morning, i really appreciate congressman van holland's reiterating that we hear from our republican colleagues that this is meant to protect those very people, but if you're going to turn medicare into a voucher program for all future beneficiaries, if you're going

to take the current medicare program, if you want to stay in that, you're going to pay more. if you're going to remove investments in medicare for additional services like preventative services, prescription drug protection by making sure that you have access to affordable prescription drugs, by removing the affordable care act investments in medicare, you aren't reshaping medicare, you are destroying medicare for current beneficiaries and for future beneficiaries. if you want to take a trillion dollars out of medicaid which protects older people, disabled adults, long term care, enables them to stay part of their families and in that community if you're going to take away that health care safety net from poor and sick children, states like mine where we have the sickest population and the poorest population in the country, then you really aren't taking care of those folks. it's like saying that if you go out and get a sunburn, that we believe that actually reduces

the risks of getting skin cancer. it makes absolutely no sense. i'm really concerned as we debate about taxes and we have to wait and see what that reform would look like to actually defend the budget that we have which again devastates medicaid, asks states to use much less money and to be more -- to do that in a block grant, if you will. all that means is the only opportunity states have is to actually take people off the medicaid rolls. and again, to completely decimate medicare. then we're basically telling seniors and disabled adults and children that if they're duly eligible or they're on the medicare program, that they're not going to be taxed in order to stay in any one of those services which means we don't have a health care infrastructure for any american moving forward. i'm actually ashamed that this is a budget that proposes those changes to those critical programs. i thank you very much, thank you for being here and

yield back. rep. van hollen: all right. well, thank you. thanks for your passion on these issues. in a moment, we're going to hear from each of three representatives from the more than 70 or 80 people who gathered just a short while ago to talk about the impact of this budget. as i turn it over i just want to stress one thing. the republicans claim that their number one objective is to somehow reduce the deficit and balance the budget. our priority is to make sure that we get an economy moving and make sure people have good paying jobs. but the republican claim that they balance the budget, it just isn't so. not even close. if you followed the hearing the other day, you would realize that even republicans were looking pretty embarrassed about the fact that their budget would not pass muster with enron accounts.

it wouldn't balance in the ten years without the affordable care act revenue in savings. at the same time they claim to be getting rid of the affordable care act. it wouldn't come close to balance if they included the more than $1 trillion in tax extenders, increased tax -- business tax cuts that they've tried to push for on the floor of the house. then on top of that, they claim a deficit reduction bonus based on phantom deficit reduction so in year ten it doesn't even come close, and anybody who tries to say that with a straight face deserves to have a reality check. here's the other point. while they're willing to make these deep cuts in education, in our infrastructure investments in science research, while they're willing to hit seniors on medicare, seniors and others on medicaid, while they hit the food and nutrition programs by $125 billion, while they do all

that, they don't close one special interest tax loophole. not one for the purpose of reducing the deficit. they don't get rid of the corporate jet tax break. they don't get of the ledge fund managers tax break. we, according to the cbo, spend more on tax breaks every year than on social security. the tax expenditures are higher every year $1.4 trillion a year compared to social security. that's more from tax expenditures, more than medicare, more than other parts of the budget. andy et they cut all these other things, put everybody else at risk, but won't take away one tax break. so we're really pleased to have representatives from groups who have their priorities straight the priorities that the american public has. we're going to hear from deb weinstein from the center of human needs. we're going to hear from joel

packer for the committee for education funding. and we'll hear from stacy sanders from the medicare rights center. let's start with deb weinstein and thank you for your passion and advocacy for hard working americans and people struggling to make ends meet. deborah weinstein: thank you so much. i really appreciate this opportunity and everything that congressman van hollen and his colleagues here are standing for. you no he, at the coalition on human needs, we watched with great interest this past fall when there was a lot of talk about concern about inequality concern about poverty, and it was voiced by republicans and democrats and we welcome that because there hadn't been a lot on the republican side, it seemed like. but i guess that was then. that was talk, and their budget

is not exactly action. it is a blueprint for the kind of action that they would like to take, and than action would make inequality worse, would make poverty worse. let me give just one example that representative van holland mentioned. and this, this budget would allow the health to low income working families from the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit, it would allow the improvements in that to expire. and what that would do is leave 16 million people, many of them children, either in poverty or more deeply in poverty. just that one failure. in addition, the block granting

and drastic cutting of food stamps, or s.n.a.p., the drop granting and drastic cutting of medicaid, these are things that will hurt children, will hurt working families, and will drive people further into poverty. throughout the budget, cuts in education, cuts in housing and so many other aspects. child care. the kinds of tools that help people work. those will be torn away at the same time that there will be these greater breaks for people at the top. inequality gets worse. poverty gets worse. if this budget were to be allowed to take effect. rep. van hollen: next, we're going to hear from joel packer from the committee for education

funding to talk about the impact of the budget on education issues. joel packer: thank you. thanks for having me. my representative community for education funding is a national coalition of 116 education groups. the budget that the committee reported at today is really going to be devastating for students and children from preschool through higher education. it does that in three major ways. first, in the pot of mrn that's called non-defense discretionary, that's the pot of money that the appropriations committee allocates each year, it is where most education programs are funded along with many other important programs, it starts up by freezing that pot of money at the sequester level for fiscal year 2016 leaving no room for any needed investments. then much worse, in the next nine years, it slashes those funds by $759 billion. it is an average cut of 14%. 14% cut in the department of education would be almost $7 billion, $8 billion that would

really be harmful for extra reading help, services for are children with disability college work study. second, it devastates the pell grant program. pell grant program has funding both on the discretionary side and the mandatory side. this budget completely eliminates all mandatory funding for pell grants. $90 billion. that would wipe out funds that increase the maximum grant award. it would result in a cut in the maximum grant of $915, almost 16%. at a time when college costs are going up and students need help to be able to afford college. third, it also really hits student loans. it eliminates the interest subsidy on student loans for undergraduate students who have financial need. that's another almost $40 billion. that's going to increase the cost of loans on average by about $3,800. again, just made college more -- less affordable and more expensive.

it has other cuts in the student loan program eliminating something called public service loan forgiveness that helps people who want to go in jobs like teaching and law enforcement and public service law to help them be able to pay their loans and make college affordable. overall, whether it's kid in head start or people in higher education, this budget cuts them from every side and we hope that the congress rejects it as it moves forward. rep. van hollen: thank you joel. next right here from stacy sanders with the medicare rights center. thank you. stacy sanders: thank you. great to be here today. i represent the medicare rights center. each year my organization works directly with over 1 1/2 million older adults, people with disabilities and family caregivers. people who rely on the medicare program for their basic health and economic security. this budget in the 50th anniversary year of medicare and medicaid really deeply cuts and undermines the promise of these

programs. i think it is important to note that if this budget were enacted, it would have very significant and real world consequences for seniors and people with disabilities. this budget would introduce a voucher or premium support program in medicare, essentially ending the guaranteed medicare benefit as we know it. that would likely increase costs for a significant number of older adults and people with disabilities. this budget would cut the medicaid program by over $900 billion and introduce block grants which would inevitably lead to higher costs and less care for very frail older adults and people with disabilities who are trying to stay in their homes and communities. finally, by repealing the affordable care act, this budget would take away health insurance for millions of americans who have been fet i haditted benefited from the marketplaces. my organization heard from 64 year-olds, 63 year-olds, people

desperately hanging on until they could become eligible for medicare. because of the aca, we don't get those calls anymore. this budget would return us back to that time where we hear from people who simply have no health insurance. in addition, a repeal of the aca would increase prescription drug costs for older people and people with disabilities, as well as increase costs for very important preventative services and screenings that really we need to give people access to so they can stay longer in their homes and their communities where they would like to be. thank you. rep. van hollen: so thank you all. we're happy to try and answer any questions that you have, if there are any questions. >> are the democrats going to stand united and -- rep. van hollen: i'm confident that the democrats will oppose this budget because it is so out of step with the values and priorities of the country.

>> all of them? rep. van hollen: you can never say for sure. but i can tell you that last year it was 100%. [inaudible question] rep. van hollen: right, what we saw last night and first time since i've been on the committee that the budget committee didn't wrap up its work during the regular mark-up. this is because of a disagreement among republicans. what it shows is a lot of uncertainty about how we're going to provide funding for national security and national defense. they have a proposal that would do exactly what republicans on the budget committee have said that we should not do in years past. and democrats agree that we should not do. and that is use what's called the overseas contingency

account, war savings account, as a slush fund to pay for ongoing defense needs that are not related to overseas operations. and yet despite the fact that the committee's always taken a strong position on using the overseas fund as a slush fund, that's exactly what they've done in this budget, and in fact they ended up with the of both worlds. they used it as a slush fund but also did not provide the certainty of additional national security defense as the president does provide for it in his budget. the president's very straightforward. puts forward an increase in our national security investment but also investing in the future of the economy and the education in infrastructure, scientific research and those kind of things. we'll have to see how that plays out on the floor of the house and whether they try to amend that in the rules committee. [inaudible question]

rep. van hollen: well, look, we're going to explore all our options to try to defeat a budget that is bad for america. it's bad in so many respects that it's hard to keep count of them all. we've gone over many of them today. but fundamentally what this does is make it harder for working americans to get ahead. makes it easy for folks who have made it to claim another round of tax cuts. but for everybody else, it's a tough budget. so we will look at always to stop a budget that we think is out of step with american values.

look, i mean we'll just look at all our options. we haven't -- we'll look at all our options going forward. [inaudible question] rep. van hollen: well, we hope that's what we can do. right? i mean that's what the president's budget does in a very straightforward fashion. the president's budget increases our investment in defense by around $37 billion. it increases our investment in education and important investments in powering our economy by a similar amount. so the president has laid out a framework for moving us ahead and making the investments that we need. that would be the template for

an agreement going forward. [inaudible question] rep. van hollen: well, again republicans are right now themselves in total disarray as to what they want. i mean it is hard to negotiate with republicans when republicans are fighting with each other. >> were you at all surprised last night? you looked surprised. rep. van hollen: there were a couple signs in the day, right? because we had to recess once earlier in the day because they had to go huddle on exactly the same issue that ended up

stalling the mark-up. again, you've got this -- you've got to give credit to some of the republican members of the committee who wanted to stand for the principle that the committee on a biparts pennsylvania basis has stood for, which is you shouldn't play games with defense spending by trying to push domestic defense -- basic defense budget needs into the overseas contingency account. using it as a slush fund. we were just reading back to republicans on the committee. their own report language saying that the committee should protect the integrity of the process and prevent us from playing those kind of budget games with defense spending. so it sends a really uncertain message to the country about where they are on defense spending. all right? thank you all very much.

>> today marks the 46th anniversary of the u.s. house of representatives first being televised. c-span was there when al gore was the first speaker to address the house floor. it was brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. then deputy secretary steve anthony testifying on ongoing negotiations over your rent plus nuclear program. later, another chance to see chris van hollen on the gop budget proposal. on the next "washington journal" wednesday's news conference at the federal reserve and what could happen if interest rates rise. after that, ron kessler and

current reform proposals for the secret service. >> martin o'malley will be speaking friday at the democratic party red white and blue dinner. we will bring you live coverage from the event in davenport. >> this weekend, the c-span cities to our has partnered with media, to learn about the history of columbus, georgia. >> this is the remains of a confederate fighting class, the css jackson. those oval shapes you see are the gun ports it is armed with

six rifles this rifle is one of the guns built specifically for jackson. it was cast as the selma naval works in alabama and completed in january of 1865. the real claim to fame is directly connected to the flag -- to the fact that there are only four ironclads from the civil war that we can study right now. the jackson is right here and this is why this facility is here. it is first and foremost the tail and the story of this particular ironclad, to show people that there are more than just one or two -- there were many. >> what all of our events saturday at noon eastern on c-span two's book tv.

>> fiscal conservatives bucking their leadership, the house budget committee. with house majority whip trying to go around the news chairman to find more republican support we could see a higher amount in the rules committee meeting next week. . during the second day of meetings, members offered amendments on sequestration, medicare defense spending and the federal minimum wage. they approved it on a partyline vote.

this is just over five hours.

>> im am going to call the committee to order. hopefully the speaker systems are working. you have to push the button in order to speak. we have a busy day ahead of us. i'd like to summarize quickly the ground rules i stated yesterday. members may only offer amendments other than a complete substitute totally offset covered by the budget resolution.

in addition the senate amendment amendments non-binding will be ruled out of order as they always have been in this committee and we will be consulting with the parliamenttarian on offered amendments and consider whether they cause them to lose its privilege. if the parliamentarian advises against such amendments they will be ruled out of order. keep in mind members have the right to modify their amendment or withdraw it. our committee rules do not permit proxy and members must be present for votes to be recorded. if a voice vote occurs, members must speak up if they wish to be recorded as aye voice vote. i will have stacked amendments throughout the day. for the alternating amendments i will be using the sides' recognition and marked up to the greatest extent possible and will confer for the best time for major stack votes to occur

to avoid people with conflicting schedules. with this many people, it's tough to do and thank members in advance for their flexibility to work with us and finish this mark-up by this evening. in order to keep the mark-up moving i request when senators offer an amendment limit remarks to three minutes and rebutted tall, two minutes and then rebut a tall limited toprior to the vote. one of the reasons we're able to get the amendments done in one day the best ones are saved for the floor. the current resolution of the budget for fiscal year 2016, and will now turn to amendment ss i would have the first opportunity to offer one but i'll refer to the next senior one if senator

sessions is ready for an amendment. then we'll go to senator sanders. >> we're just starting. green tablecloth to match the color of money and maybe my green eye shades being one of those kind of republicans. mr. president, i'm offering a deficit neutral reserve fund for a welfare legislation to help struggling americans move to the road to personal and financial independence rather than dependence. 70 million working age residents not currently working. 1 in 4 americans between 25 and 54, the prime years, is not working. four straight years, more than 40 million americans have been on food stamps. 1 in 3 americans receive some kind of means-tested support, 1 in 3. i agree with senator sanders we

have a problem. i think we all agree we have a problem and it's been moving in this direction a number of years years. middle working americans are being hammered here. the federal government spends $750 million on maintenance-tested welfare and poverty programs. with state contributions, a million dollars a year, the money spread out over 80 programs administered by vast bureaucracy with little oversight and no guiding moral vision about the purpose ultimately of our government action. only 1% of this spending is dedicated to job training while job training is fragmented into 47 different programs throughout the federal government. who among us can say there isn't a more effective compassionate way to spend this 1$1 trillion each year? we could spend $30,000 a year on every household living in poverty and still spend half of what our current welfare bureaucracy consumes each year.

what i would urge colleagues let's create a system, a deficit neutral reserve system that will facilitate reform of these programs. my vision is that all government assistance programs would be consolidated into one office. a person in need would go to that office, as part of the need that they receive, whether it's job training, food stamps or other programs, they would also be counseled and evaluated for job programs and work programs that could move them off dependence. it's been over 20 years since

the last welfare reform. it's time for another one. this would simply allow us to better facilitate the kind of reform that would help people in need and also help us over time to reduce expenditures. thank you, mr. chairman. >> any opposition? >> yeah. >> senator sanders. >> what senator sessions is doing is focusing on a very important issue, but i think he's approaching it in the wrong way. as i understand it, what he has done is lumped in the quote unquote welfare programs, many programs essential for the middle class and working families of this country, within the umbrella term "unquote welfare, he includes the earned income tax credit, supplemental security income ssi funding for breast and cervical cancer early detection, meals on wheels for seniors, the chip program and many other programs. now, senator sessions is right to point out, as i often do, that we have more people living in poverty today than almost any

time in the modern history of america. the very next amendment that is going to be offered i will offer will create millions of jobs to start putting people back to work when they need those jobs. we're going to be talking today about raising the minimum wage to a living wage so people don't need governmental programs talking about pay equity so women workers can get the same wages as men and in doing that significant significantly cutting poverty. right now we have a whole lot of people hurting, vulnerable. i think senator sessions amendment moves us in the wrong direction. senator stabineau, you want to add anything? >> this is something we would offer to help struggling americans on the road to financial independentce. we see very different path. this pulls the rug out by those trying to get ahead, keeping things focused on those already wealthy or well-connected.

i would say if we really want to lyft people out of poverty, we could lift half the women in this country if we just made sure we have equal pay for equal work. we literally would lift half the women out of poverty. i'd love to join with the senator on alabama with those things. that don't punish folks working two or three jobs trying to make it but create a path for opportunity. the intent of this goes unfortunately in the opposite direction. >> mr. chairman, a brief response? one minute? >> you'll get half a minute before we vote. >> okay. half a minute before we vote. we won't vote yet, stack the votes for later.

they get two people and i get one. >> right. that's fair. >> you get three minutes and we get two minutes. >> okay. >> they've gone to three people you might have got an yes. >> now, we'll go to senator sanders. >> thank you very much. >> i accept the goal of three and two. that's a fair limit on time, i suppose. suppose. >> mr. chairman, the amendment i'm offering now address, i think, some of the significant problems facing our country. i doubt that there's any person around this table or very few americans who do not understand that our infrastructure, roads bridges, water systems wastewater plants, airports, levees dams in this country are

crumbling. we spent half of what europe does on infrastructure and significantly less than china. today, the world economic forum ranks our overall infrastructure at 12th in the world. we used to lead the world. we are now in 12th place. i hear many of my republicans friends and all of us talking about what kind of debt we leave to our kids. you know what, when your infrastructure is crumbling and when the american society for civil engineers tells us we need over $3 trillion investment, if we don't deal with it now we're leaving that debt to our kids as well. i think we can agree we need infrastructure significant efforts to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. when we do that, we do something also very important, getting to senator sessions point. that is today, real unemployment in this country is not 5 1/2%. if you count those people given up looking for work or working part-time, it is 11%. it is higher among young people and very very high in the construction industry. it seems to me now is the time to put city councilsubstantial funding into rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and make our system more efficient and productive at the same time,

create millions of decent paying jobs. this is good for the economy good for the country and good for our future. i would hope we can have anonymous support for an effort to put people back to work at good wages while we rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. that's what this amendment is about. about. >> i guess we'd have to take just about the same approach you did on the last one, the title sounds good but the details get into some problems. i don't think there are any of us that aren't interested in increasing the infrastructure, we're just interested in increasing the infrastructure in a logical way that's paid for. that's what a budget neutral deficit does. so senator portman.

>> it was interesting because ranking member sanders talked about world rankings, we were 12th in the world on infrastructure -- >> i'm sorry? >> you said we were 12th in the world now on our infrastructure. there's another world ranking put out by the world bank and it says we are 41st now in the country by the world bank and it says that we are 41st now on our ability to get a permit for the construction project. in other words, to get a green light something. and we have bipartisan legislation to address that, senator casse kill and myself. i see you've got solutions here on tax loopholes and so on and there may be opportunities to have tax reform that includes some funding for infrastructure, but we've also got to look at this issue and this is why the building trades council supports others, how do we green light something? whether it's an energy project,

solar, energy and gas, it just takes so long and there's so many liability issues that discourage investment in america versus other places. we've got lots of testimony on that, including a hearing last year, so i hope that the member of the committee will look at that legislation as one way to help get our infrastructure back on track. >> using some additional time here, i would mention we have a deficit neutral transportation built into the resolution. and it doesn't have to be done through tax increases as this one does. >> i think i have a little bit of time left on my national remarks. this is paid for by one of the tax scandals facing this country. and that is we are losing at least $100 billion every single year. because large corporations and the wealthiest people in this country are pocketing their pockets in the cayman islands and bermuda and paying zero in federal income tax, so we should eliminate those conditions, put

that money into rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and create millions of jobs. that's what this proposal does. >> i hope that the tax reform folks that are working on this for both sides of the aisle can handle that and i think they can. that's where the appropriate action would be for that sort of thing. senator grassley, do you have an amendment amendment? >> this would be number one. cosponsored by senator ayotte. this will establish a spending neutral reserve fund to reform and improve and enhance 529 college savings plans. many of my colleagues an i were taken back by the president putting forward a proposal in his budget to tax 529 accounts.

the president had to quickly backtrack on his proposal based on prexzexpressed concerns from across the political spectrum. i believe the big reason it was met with disapproval is that we all know first habd through communications with our constituent that is the typical family with 5.9 accounts is a family with modest means. i have some statistics on that. an average, on a national average, the average account balance is under 21,000 and for my iowans who hold 529s, the balance is lower than 18,000. i was pleased to be able to work with senator casey on a bipartisan bill that reaffirms congress' support for college savings. this bill is the basis for my amendment today.

it would make three important yet very modest reforms. to 529 plans. it would permit 529 funds to be used to pufs a computer as other required educational materials that can be paid for from 529. it eliminates an unnecessary aggregation rule that increases paper work and costs on plan administrators, that's the first two reasons. the third and last reason is the bill would exempt any refund tuition from income tax or the 10% penalty tax so long as the funds are redeposited in a 529 account within 60 days and if

you think that that, the necessity of that would be somebody starting in september got sick in october, then if they had to drop out of school the remaining funds could be taxed and if you put them back in the 529 account, they can be -- privileges. these changes will help keep administrative costs low and provide little extra incentive for parents to put money away for child's education. in addition to senator casey, my bill is cosponsored by throw democratic finance committee members. and four republican finance committee members. the same bill has passed the house of representatives by a vote of 41-20. so i hope my colleagues will support to send to college savings. thank you, mr. chairman. >> rebuttal. >> i think mr.

chairman, senator grassley's amendment represents the first appearance in a budget mark up of something called a spending neutral reserve fund. and we had a very instructive comment from senator king yesterday, pointing out that if you want to address the deficit, we have a considerable number of tools to do so. we can cut spending and have cut a lot of spend ng the course of the past years. we can also raise revenues by closing some smell li loopholes that are on their face, very hard to justify. we can make improvements in health care, which i think both parties have agreed is the real driver and we can make investments to grow the roads,

infrastructure, better facilities, trains, all the things that a modern economy needs. by focusing on spending alone, i think we take our eye off the ball. and so, i will categorically vote against everything that is a spending neutral reserve fund because i think it misses the picture that senator king so well laid out for us. if this were a deficit neutral reserve fund, fine. i think there are plenty of areas i think i'd support senator sessions amendment because he just made because i think these are conversations worth having even if i disagree

on where the conversation might go, but when you start and say the only thing we're going look at are spending cuts, i will vote no on this. >> thank you. your side. >> yeah. >> one more. >> when we talk about the economy, there are a couple of important factors. one, the need for employment -- to create millions of jobs and number two, wages are much too low. we have many, many millions of working people. in my state, people are working 40, 50, 60 hours a week, but their wages are so low and many don't have decent health care, they're really strugging to keep their heads above water. satly, the federal minimum wage today pays only a little over $15,000 a year. that is nearly $1,000 below the poverty threshold for a single parent.

since 1968, the real value of the federal minimum wage has fallen by close to 30%. if it had kept up with inflation since 1968, it would be worth at least 10.10 per hour today, so the amendment i'm offer sg a deficit reserve fund amendment. which substantially raises the minimum wage. and what it says to people all over this country that if you're going to work 40 hours a week or more, you are not going to live many poverty. i think as every person around this room knows, there is widespread support for this concept. in those states where the issue has been placed on the ballot, even in conservative states, it has won overwhelmingly and what people understand is you cannot live on $15,000 a year. you can't bripgng up a family. you can't pay rent. you can't deal with health care, child care, if you're earning a starvation, minimum wage of

seven and a quarter, so, what this amendment says to millions of working people, we understand your struggle. we're going to help a little bit by raising the minimum wage substantially so that when you work 40 hours a week, you can live in dignity. and that's what this amendment is about. >> having been through a number of these debates now, the last time was when senator kennedy was with us and there was a raise in the minimum wage, but one of the substantial points that is always brought up is that we have higher unemployment as you mentioned underemployment, we've got a whole bunch of problems with employment right now and beginning wage is minimum wage and beginning skills is the reason for those minimum wages. and what we need to do is increase the skills, which we've given the opportunity through the workforce investment opportunity act i've had discussions with some people who were very offended when the other side referred to their jobs as dead end jobs. i'm visiting with a person who

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

real factor in the world and you bring in more labor from abroad and the price of labor declines. cbo said that the comprehensive immigration bill reduced wages and race unemployment, and that per capita gdp in america would fall. that is one thing we have to think about. >> anyone who is working a full-time job should not be in poverty.

>> next amendment by senator crapo. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is an amendment which most of the members of this committee are familiar with. i brought it in the last two times we have had a budget mark up and it has been approved unanimously by the committee each time. i hope we get the same result this time. this is an amendment which creates a point of order for the crime victims fund from being used and diverted for purposes other than for the protection of victims of crime. most of you know what this is -- it is one of the biggest changes in mandatory spending programs that we utilize.

who are we talking about here? the most vulnerable in our society. as you know i was the republican sponsor of the violence against women act. the women and children and men who are victims of crime in their own homes are the ones who are being deprived of access to these funds by congress, which wants to use these funds for some other purpose. these are not taxpayer dollars. these expenditures do not address or add to the deficit. instead these are funds that are collected from perpetrators of crime and are intended to be utilized for the victims. my amendment to stop congress from what i consider one of the smelliest loopholes we engage in -- this one. this amendment would stop congress from engaging in this terrible practice and protect and preserve the integrity of this fund. senator toomey is a cosponsor of

this event and i yield my time to him. >> i thank senator crapo very much for yielding to me. it has been 15 years that congress has been taking hundreds of millions of dollars under federal law that should be going to victims of the most around his crimes imaginable -- jot abuse, sexual assault, domestic violence. it's outrageous. i am very enthusiastically supporting the senator. the funds collected $12 billion not from taxpayers but from convicted criminals and gave victims only $3.6 million of that. this is outrageous. the senator is exactly right and i'm proud to cosponsor. >> a few seconds left. >> i would like to be added as a cosponsor. this money should go to victims. thank you.

>> thank you. rebuttal? >> at senator crapo mentioned, i suspect that many of my colleagues will support this amendment. but i did want to add to it that if we are serious about helping victims of crimes, as all of us are, we would not be voting for a budget that flashes funding to the program. republican budget cuts $30 billion in mandatory funding on the justice budget function, a 72% cut. the victims fund represents 78% of total funding it is part of the budget. it would seem impossible that these cuts could come from anywhere else but money intended to support victims of crime. i understand that we have adopted a similar point of order and would likely to do so again.

i want to make sure everyone understands that the relation here is that this budget puts this entire program at risk and i would recommend my colleagues support this amendment. >> mad be added as a cosponsor? >> mr. chairman, thank you. i will offer my amendment not to the bipartisan budget act of 2013 and and a victory -- replacement of sequestration through fiscal years 2017. i don't have to explain why we need to replace automatic cuts with more responsible saving. i know everyone agrees. but democrats and republicans cost the country. terrible policy is an absurd way

to reduce the deficit and they need to be replaced. i know republicans on the committee had been very vocal about the need to back the custom. lester democrats and republicans were able to reach an agreement that rolls back the worst of these automatic cuts for 2013 and 2014 and that prevented another government shutdown. in lieu of desolate from the constant crisis and restart critical investments in research and education in defense and helped they economy get back on again. if the amendment builds on that deal an expensive for two more years. he maintains the principle that democrats won't abandon that sequestration should not -- should be replaced evenly across defense and nondefense investments. we replaced with new revenue from closing tax loopholes which since this is a already contains massive spending cuts

already, and no new revenue maintains the principle that sequestration should be replaced with the next of -- a of responsible spending cuts. that is similar to the language we passed in a previous budget. i heard our colleagues to it that support this amendment so we can all agree on responsible and realistic topline spending numbers and allow the appropriations committee to do the work without waiting for another crisis. >> one of the disadvantages of this process where we don't get to see amendments in advance is that they can be a little bit difficult to understand on the spur of the moment. and also to have the text by i assume this would not be problems with parliamentarian. >> that's correct. >> i haven't been able to either

all of these numbers yet. >> i'm happy to walk you through the last sequence ration replacement budget -- last sequestration replacement budget as well. >> i'm sure you will. >> we did end a lot of difficulties by across-the-board cuts. i don't know what extent nondefense relief got from that. the sequester was just part of the budget control act. after next year, standing will go up by nondefense in defense spending at two and a half percent per year. i do believe that at this time of international danger, the defense department will have to have some relief. it is not as if we have further cuts out there.

spending will begin to go up and maintain the increasing level over the next seven years. >> in my out of time -- am i out of time? >> you have a little bit. >> if the sequestration is allowed to go into effect, at the end of this year without replacing irresponsibly, the cuts will be demonstrating -- devastating across-the-board and i think most people know that. >> mr. chairman i wanted to report that there is a way to do this right. we actually cut more than sequestration in the farm bill without across-the-board cuts. we supported things that worked well, cut things that did not work well, cut ever -- over a hundred different programs. we didn't delete the public wants us to buy evaluating the

programs individually. i would hope we would do away with the craziness of across-the-board cuts and get back to the business of evaluating programs for their worthiness and --. >> i would certainly want to get back to evaluating programs because we found 260 programs that are out of authorization that were still spending money on. that comes to do hundred $93 billion worth of spending per year. there are things we need to do within the budget and we shouldn't be just cutting across the board. there should be flexibility built-in and we should be scrutinizing what we are doing. i don't think we have done that. one of the purposes of a budget is so appropriators can get busy after april 13 and know what the limits are so they can make requests for changes or whatever. >> which is what this amendment would allow them to do.

>> time has expired on that amendment. our site for senator graham. >> this amendment is not the oh: amendment. --oko amendment. this is a deficit neutral reserve fund. set up to help us with overseas diplomatic facilities. benghazi is an example of, i wish we had had better security. the world is getting more dangerous by the day. we just closed our embassy temporarily in djibouti. working with senator leahy on appropriations we have put $5.4 billion in for embassy security. 46.4 billion above the budget request. we also set aside $25 million as

a source of funding to address emerging and immediate security requirements. this deficit neutral reserve fund would allow us to look throughout the government and try to find a bipartisan approach to put in more money in a diplomatic security, something i think we all understand we need. it does allow not just spending cuts but revenue if we can work out an agreement acceptable to all of us. god knows what's coming our way overseas and to those who are in the diplomatic corps. you are in your pay as much as any member of the military and dangerous circumstances. this amendment will try to make your life a little safer. >> rebuttal? >> the son and grandson of diplomats to serve in faraway dangerous places i would like to be added. >> without objection.

any other comments? back to your side. >> white house. >> this is a technical amendment. everybody has in front of us these budget documents, which at some point will have numbers in it. when it does not have is the spending that goes out to the tax code. it does not report it here. the chairman has eyewitnesses and the ranking member have had witnesses who live our pride is an basis, had come in and said to us that money that flows out through the tax code should be counted as spending. they use the word tax spending. but what our budget process does is counsel revenue from the basis of net revenue.

-- counts revenue from the basis of net revenue. so the amount of money $1.5 trillion, that goes out the back door of the tax code and that our own witnesses on a bipartisan basis have tax -- called tax spending, never appears in our budget document. this is a simple amendment to add information which has been obtained from the jcp and crs and extended forward by our committee staff. exactly in line with economic -- growth to add numbers to the document. i hope this can be a bipartisan and unanimous amendment. it does nothing but add that element of information to the budget document. . i believe i should add noncontroversial and factual

information. we can make technical adjustments to fix it but it is a question of disclosing the full budget picture. >> i'm glad you added that last statement. you have determined what items are tax expenditures eliminated. i think the finance committee is very concerned about their jurisdiction and whether they can stipulate those things are not. >> this is just a total mr. chairman. there is no determination about what should or should not be eliminated. this is the jcp elimination that goes through the tax code. there is no selection or distinction, just the jcp number. but we have done is advanced it for five years because we do a 10 year budget and they do 10 years here it we advance down note rate of the growth of the economy.

that is adjusting for the following five years. >> you want to explain the same things in their -- in their? we don't work in totals, we work and details of the finance committee. >> since this is a budget committee and we do work with totals, this would disclose what the totals are. >> if we know where they come from. yes. any other comments ?responsible >> i would like to learn a little bit more about this as we leave the table. all of us would ease somewhat interested. i look forward to talking to you about it and it might help us think a little bit down the road about how we come up with a bipartisan package to deal with fiscal issues. i look forward to talking to you. >> chairman?

>> i think senator corcoran said it better than i did. i look forward to talking with you. >> i look forward to talking to my colleagues and i ensure there are no tricks to this amendment. there is nothing hidden. this is just getting the information they publish about the total revenue lost due to the tax loopholes and deductions as determined by jct, and extended five years forward a stunt economic growth. i think it is factual information that should be in the budget. right now we only report revenue on a net basis. >> senator portman. >> thank you mr. chairman. this has to do with exports.

we talked about the need for more jobs and better jobs. to deal it this issue of flat wages and reduce benefits. economists will tell you one of the best ways is to expand exports. exports pay 17% more than average wages, provide better benefits. and it with the ohio farm bureau this morning. i talked about the fact that one of every three acres in ohio is printed for export. they would like to ask for more because it needs fair prices for them. in ohio about 25% of manufacturing jobs are export jobs now. we want more projects made in america and sent overseas. and i think this is one where as a matter of the budget, we ought to be at least making a statement on the importance of exports. we missed this point sometimes as we talk about some of the specific trade agreements and

the specific issue, wu yes -- but we have to make sure that people are not below cost. we need to be tougher on that. nothing inconsistent with being tough on imports, but also expanding exports more. america is exporting well below the averages of other county -- other countries. i think we are between ethiopia and congo right now. so, huge potential here for us to not just create jobs, but create better jobs. i also believe we can do more in materials of leveling the playing field on imports and in terms of dealing with the currency issue, which is an issue that does affect trade but one way to level the playing field is to open more markets to u.s. products, and right now we are sitting on the sidelines while other countries are creating marketing open agreements and that's one reason exports are not meeting the potential. that yes, we have a little playing field.

i would hope we can get us back on track of the general notion that we have a level playing field. >> can you speak more into the mike? can you move your mike closer when you're speaking? the table's so long. >> thank you. >> why is it -- >> spending neutral? >> doesn't involve taxes. one way or the other. >> in that case, i'm going to oppose it. but i think underlying idea is a fine one. if it were deficit neutral. i would be open to it. >> now, i can't hear either side . >> probably be a good idea if people try to speak closer to the mike. i don't know that there's anything wrong with senator portman's amendment per se, but i think when we talk about exports and the need to create jobs, we are about to understand that for the last 30 years, the various trade policies we've had have done just the opposite. they have failed. in my view, when you look at the

pluses and minuses, the trade policies, it turns out we've lost a hell of a lot more jobs than we've gained. we have lost 60,000 factories, since 2001, not all attributable to trade, but a lot of them. while i don't have anything to senator portman's amendment per se, i would hope if we're serious about creating exports and creating manufacturing jobs, we take a hard look at trade policy in this country over the last 30 years and the proposed p -- tpp. >> senator. >> could we stipulate that spending neutral includes tax expenditures? that the term spending includes tax expenditures?

>> who was that question addressed to? >> i'm just asking for those putting spending neutral proposals on the table, if we can stipulate spending includes tax expenditure, i think many of these would be noncontroversial. >> mr. chairman this question for you and your staff in terms of how you want to address that general issue. with regard to exports, i don't think we need to get in the issue of raising taxes. that is not the issue. the issue is being able and senator sanders is correct, we need to be stable to expand exports and i know we have a disagreement. >> why do we need to cut expenditures to expand exports? >> hopefully, we don't have to. hopefully, it's going to be neutral. aren't going to increase or decrease spending. but there's no need to get into raising taxes in this area. maybe an opportunity in some other areas.

but let me make one more point. if i could have time. how much time do i have? 29 seconds. okay. there are free policies and trade agreements where we have a trade agreement with another country, it's only 10% of the global gdp. not china, not japan, not europe. at 10% of global gdp now takes 47% of our exports, so good agreements that knock down these barriers are good for american farmers, workers and service providers. that is what this amendment is about. thank you chairman. >> and we'll lay that one aside so we can get an answer on tax expenditures. senator sanders. >> who was on our side. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is an amendment to create a budget against legislation that would reduce medicare outlays below the fiscal year 2014 level. in other words, a point of order if medicare is cut. in this budget. this is a big difference between

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

so, one might say they want obamacare medicare and change medicare to look more like obamacare, which i find a very -- fascinating debate. so this is an amendment that would say we're not going to cut medicare, we're not going to voucherize it. we're not going to provide a price support system. we're not going to cut outlays below the fiscal 2014 levels. >> in this budget, we just took the president's numbers for what to do with medicare, but we put in a provision that it should be saved for medicare itself. not shift it into other programs. >> if i might just say, given the house budget, given the conference process, given the fact that we know our desires over the years, proposal after proposal for voucher systems to

change from a single-payer structure where everyone knows they have health care to one where it vouchers or price supports or whatever it is called, now they are calling it an exchange. an obamacare type exchange. all these different versions this amendment simply says we want to keep medicare the way it is in terms of the spending and outlays. we can work together to improve medicare, but we are not going to cut it. >> senator sessions. >> colleague, we have to recall that obamacare health care bill cut medicare $500 billion. and used that money to spend on a new program. so, but as i understand, you're not proposing this budget doesn't propose any unwise reductions in medicare spending, but i just want to recall that those cuts were to providers so

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

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

to put that in perspective, the entire net private asset base of america today is $110 trillion. what i find in washington, d.c. is a lot of delusion. people denying reality. i can tell story. when we were in the white house trying to find some areas of agreement on our debt, i showed a similar graphic to president obama. and said, mr. president, the way you get everything on the table for discussion is you take this information, the depth of the problem. the definition of the problem to the american public. use your bully pulpit. let the public collectively admit the depth, the size, the problem. you know what he said to me? he said, we can't show american public numbers this big. if we do, they'll get scared. besides, we can't do all the work. we have to leave some work for future presidents and future congresses. that level of denial, delusion

is what's really preventing us from tackling these long-term problems, so again, we are just simply denying that reality. my amendment is pretty simple. if cbo does publish alternate fiscal scenario, they do it as a percentage of gdp. nobody really understands there's some scary charts and , graphs. we've asked the cbo to convert those percentage gdp to dollars. they refuse to do that, so we do it ourselves. all my amendment does, similar to senator whitehouse it , provides accurate information, projections based on based on good economics. at least it provides some kind of range. hopefully, this can be a very bipartisan deal to provide information so that america collectively understands the depth of the problem and we can stop diluting ourselves in terms of what we need to be talking about is the entire budget. not just a third. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman.

>> i applaud senator johnson for wanting to educate the american people and i think as a nation we should not be fighting about -- frightened about big numbers. but urge senator johnson to add to his discussion of economic reality, not just deficits and debts, but the reality of what's happening to the middle class and the massive level of income and wealth inequality in this country. you can't just talk about a deficit without understanding that today, 99% of all new income generated goes to the top 1%. you can't just talk about a national debt without understanding that today, the top one tenth of 1%, more wealth than the bottom 90%. so, if your goal and i share

that goal, let's educate the american people about economic reality. let's talk about how we create jobs, raise wages, deal with the deficit, but i am concern eded -- concerned my republican friends don't talk about the trillions of dollars and transfer of wealth that has gone from the middle class to the top one tenth of 1%, so if you want to include that information in your amendment, count me in as a cosponsor. >> you actually can just talk about one section and this is a pretty simple amendment. talking about cbo that projects this as a gdp. i just want them to convert it to dollars and reported that way. we are all concerned about america. i am highly concerned about income inequality. i'm concerned about the fact that federal government doesn't have enough revenue, but the fact of the matter is, economic growth, which would come about by tax reform, regulatory relief, just from 2009 to last fiscal year, we've increased revenue by more than $900

billion and that comes from incentivizing economic behavior rather than demonizing it. we can't take a look at this as a particular piece of information that would be helpful to the definition and admission of a problem. >> senator king. >> senator johnson, i'm all in favor of the more information, the better. i just would suggest a friendly amendment expressed in terms of dollars and as a percentage of gdp. unlike you, i think a percentage of gdp is a helpful way to make dollars comprehensive will. >> i would be happy to include that. >> thank you. >> further discussion, still about ten seconds left. okay. >> if there's ten seconds left i'll say i am all for adding more information. i was hopeful for a moment that with all the talk about denial we might have had a breakthrough on climate change, but i guess that's for another day.

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

>> senator sanders. >> thank you very much. chairman enzi. senator sanders. colleagues, this is the amendment to give us the opportunity secure the protection for our public lands and the opportunities that they present for our community. this creates a deficit neutral reserve fund for federal lands rural schools, payment in leah -- in lieu of taxes and the land and conservative vegas fund, each of these programs is a bonanza for rural america. they protect our public lands, clean water, wildlife, tourism, outdoor recreation. they support local businesses and local economies. and so often, these are the communities that say to washington, d.c., are we just going to be left out of this debate. this ensures that rural america has a presence in this budget

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

not need the safety net as well and that is why it has been so important since 2000 and senator crapo knows that senator craig and i teamed up on that. since then, there's been a large group of westerners thf worked on it in a bipartisan way and i think this is ament gives us the chance to once again link secure rural schools and payment in lieu of taxes an ensure we go to a forestry policy that increases the harvest in sustainable fashion while at the same time ensuring that we have the safety net that is so important for our communities. and i'll just close. i think every member of this committee understands that americans place a high value on clean water, salmon and wildlife habitat and quality of life in

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

that we saw when we linked secure rural schools and pilt together, both programs won. when they were delined in effect -- delinked innospec at the end , of last year because of the complex way in which the formula is determined, a lot of the communities that reliedyied on payment saw reductions in their payments. i hope we can go back to what has successful in the past and that's part of why i offered the amendment. i would yield back. >> any other rebuttal? >> senator crapo. >> mr. chairman, not rebuttal. it was support. i just want to thank senator widen for this amendment and if work he does to help us deal with these problems with the secure rural schools and pilt funding. i appreciate working with him on

this and hope we can pass in amendment unanimously. >> no. do we know when the vote is going to be? at noon. okay. i think we can go ahead and vote on sessions number one, sanders number one, grassley number one and sanders number two and that will give us some time to work on the others so that we can do those after the vote. sessions number one, sanders number one. grassley number one. and sanders number two. >> could you also just -- without raising new revenue? >> yeah, yeah, okay. i trust you. >> if everybody's got their materials, i'll call up sessions number one.

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

no just the ones on the , committee. continue with the amendment process until offering amendments until the vote's called. that will give people more time to repair. -- prepare. >> yes, sir. >> 1:00. senator ayotte. we'll go back to offering. >> i'm just -- >> we're offering. there was some confusion on both sides. give people more time to prepare. yeah. >> so, i'm offering an amendment

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

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

>> i would like to be added, too. >> senator cane, also, without objection. okay. senator sanders. >> following that broad-based support for senator ayotte's amendment, i hope to follow in the same mold. i've got an agreement with senator johnson as a cosponsor. hesitate to say anything would be a no brainer because when i hope would be viewed as such. this is simply requiring the irs to notify americans when they're the victims of identity fraud. the gao reported that the irs paid out an estimated $5.8 billion in fraudulent funds in 2013. the irs lists the top fraud schemes, but they don't tell individual taxpayers even if

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

this is a very good amendment and i fully support it. >> senator ayotte. >> i would like to be added as a cosponsor. my uncle went through this as well. >> thank you. >> i, too, would like to be added as a cosponsor. >> thank you. any further comments? okay, then that goes to senator wicker on our side. >> thank you. this is wicker amendment number one. mr. chairman and it follows along the same lines as senator johnson's about getting a second and third decade of estimates. what this amendment does though is say for -- bills that have a spending effect of a quarter of

a percent of gdp over the first decade, we require that the cbo give us an estimate on out into the second and third decade. that's essentially what it does and i would think it would be a nice compliment to senator johnson's amendment. >> concerns with this amendment -- and we'll need to discuss it before the vote -- is that it is hard enough to predict what will happen ten years in the future and if anyone is smart enough to know what will be happening 20 or 30 years from now, let us know.

tell us right now. we could save a whole lot of trouble. for example, i think we all know this. in 1996, cbo projected in 2000 just four years into the future at that time, the deficit would be $244 billion. in reality, the year 2000's surplus of $232 billion. only off by $400 billion. etc. etc.. if cbo was unable to accurately predict what will happen ten years into the future, four years into the future, four months into the future, i suspect they're going to have a hard time predicting what will happen 20 or 30 years from now. so i'm afraid that the motivation behind this amendment is to make it look like programs that help some of our most vulnerable people in this country are just outrageously expensive, and i just don't think we can project 20 or 30 years into the future. >> well, it's only difficult to predict when it's about the future. senator johnson?

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

certainly correct. as a matter of fact, there are republican and democratic members of this committee that have been working together on issues involving programs that have a lot more effect in the out years. i would think this would actually be supported by a bipartisan majority based on the conversations that i've been having with democrats since i've been a member of the committee this term. >> used up that minute. senator sanders. >> senator baldwin, do you have an amendment? >> thank you. thank you.

i'd like to call up the baldwin amendment dealing with the joint committee on taxation estimates. this is very appropriate to the discussion we're having right now about the information available to us when we review policy and tax reform proposals. section 412 of the chairman's mark is entitled "honest accounting estimates." i believe it needs some improvements to attempt to live up to that title. the chairman's mark requires that the congressional budget office and the joint committee on taxation provide a supplementary dynamic score for certain bills. now, i have my questions about dynamic scoring. i believe that it sometimes cooks the books by making tax cuts seem cheaper than they are in reality. but i do believe that we need information and we need to look at how the proposals that are

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

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

is major legislation that would then be able to acquire these estimates that we're talking about. >> now you're undoing the history of the budget committee with that. the chairman has always had the final word on the scoring. >> although the amendment -- the johnson amendment, if i'm getting this correct, has the same allocation for the chairman and the ranking member. or was it the wicker one? wicker, i'm sorry. so it would follow suit. either the chairman or the ranking member of the respective committees would make that call. >> senator portman. >> thank you. i'm looking at this for the first time. because it would in effect from what you said amend the provisions in the bill that are part of the legislation that i've introduced and actually that we voted on as a committee last time we went through this process and actually took it to

the floor and had democratic support and passed it by a vote of 52, which meant six or seven democrats ordered it, including -- supported it, including members of this committee. so i need to take a look at this. i don't know that we want to change the tradition of this committee, that it's the chair and not the chair and ranking member who ultimately is the scorekeeper here, which is what it has been through democrat and republican majorities alike. i'm happy to take a look at it. just be sure that you understand what macroeconomic scores mean to me, at least. this is not about cooking the books. this is about providing us information we badly need to come up with good tax reform. no one would tell you that tax reform is not going to have any impact on the economy. under the score, that's essentially what it says. we may disagree at the end of the day on what the right impact is, congressional budget office, joint tax committee do this macroeconomic analysis. what the provision in this legislation provides for, which

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

and i'd like to offer that as a side by side when that comes up. we'll be combining that language. i just wanted to get in the queue to offer that. >> side by sides will be allowed when we have a side by side. of course, that'll be pulled out of the voting order and put until later so the two side by sides can be -- >> so we can offer that then? >> yes. >> thank you. >> senator corker on our side. >> thank you, mr. chairman. appreciate the courtesy. this is an amendment that i hope many people will support. it will give us more information about the long-term impacts of legislation. and what it does is require cbo to produce for informational purposes only, let me underline that, for informational purposes only a 30-year score for legislation that would either raise the bca caps or authorize general fund transfers into the highway fund. now, we'd still for scoring

purposes only use a ten-year score. here's the issue i'm trying to fix. last year -- >> could you talk a little closer to the mic, please? >> last year we had a situation with the highway trust fund where we created this gimmick that we spent money for a short amount of time. in a ten-year window, we had a gimmick to pay for it that looked like it was positive, but in years '20 and '30, we lost significant amounts of money. it was just a gimmick that due to timing made it look like we were actually paying for something. so again, for informational purposes, i'd just like for us on issues that address either the bca caps or the highway trust fund to have this 30-year score to help us see whether we're actually doing something that's lowering the deficit or not or at least, excuse me paying for something like we say we're paying for it. so i hope people will support this. it's not a gotcha step. it's common sense. with that, i'll stop.

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

for focusing on that so much during these hearings. but our need to look at things over the long haul. again, this is for informational purposes only. thank you. >> rebuttal? senator merkley? >> thank you. my amendment, which i'm introducing with senator widen would create a deficit neutral reserve fund to reduce the cost of attending institutions of higher education with the goal of students graduating and doing so with less of a debt burden. an affordable path to higher education is a key pillar for a strong middle class, but today an increasing number of students are graduating with substantial debt when they start their working lives. indeed, two-thirds of our college seniors who graduate with debt, and their average debt will be about $26,000 to $27,000. many, obviously, have much higher individual debt burdens. we know that the sky-rocketing student loan debt is hurting our

economy. the total amount of debt is now surpassing the credit card debt. 40% of graduates with college loans are delaying making major purchases such as a car. the rate of homeownership by college graduates is declining. and more and more students are wrestling with whether they should attend college because of that debt load they will carry with them as a mill stone around their neck. that is not the doors of opportunity which we want to open wide. that is the doors of opportunity closing on our students of modest means. by 2020, our economy will have a deficit of 5 million college-educated workers. by 2020, 60% of all jobs will -- 65% of all jobs will require education beyond college. both for the sense of opportunity in our nation and for our future economy, college needs to be more affordable. that's why i'm asking for support for this amendment.

>> the budget resolution doesn't make any changes to the outstanding student loans and won't prevent anyone from getting a federal student loan who's currently eligible to receive one. so we are just trying to rein in the rising college costs. i will keep my remarks brief. senator purdue probably want to make some presentations. we can do that before we vote. any other? senator purdue? senator purdue,: while republicans may differ about vc fud and making them a part of the appropriation process should a nonpartisan issue.