>> 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.

the funding does not come from congress. it comes from transfers. this is $600 million without congressional oversight over the agencies fund. congressional oversight is a constitutional function. this agency has proven it is not a good steward for expenses. a prime example, the cost overruns of the headquarters currently. inspector general estimated a cost overrun of that renovation. current estimates put it at $600 per foot. that is more per square foot than the cost to build the bellagio casino. i enter it in for consideration. thank you. >> mr. chairman. senator enzi: sanders.

senator sanders: i speak in opposition to this. no other bank is subjected to regular appropriations. it is one way of singling out the one regulator which is a consumer advocate and this amendment would weaken an important agency. the copd has been successful. it has helped consumers who will receive relief from unsafe financial services. it has ordered consumer relief. i would urge a no vote on this of amendment. >> mr. chairman. can i be recognized? senator enzi: senator toomey. senator toomey: i think the senator from georgia is correct.

it is unaccountable. it is unique among powerful regulators and having no accountability to congress. it has exceeded its authority because it is not subject to congressional oversight. it is outrageous they are able to operate with the budget they have in the latitude they have without having to come to congress. i think the gentleman from georgia for offering the amendment. i join them. senator enzi: senator kaine has an amendment to offer. senator kaine, i do. it has some bipartisan support. two of my colleagues, senators baldwin and portman are with me. this amendment is a deficit due to reserve fund to support legislation, encouraging more cte innovation to prepare

students. i am the son of an iron worker and i run a technical school, and learned the power of cte. there is some wonderful programs around the country. 30% of jobs will require technical training. i believe both senators baldwin and portman are cosponsoring. senator enzi: i don't see any rebuttals. there is a vote in progress. we will recess now until 1:30. we will begin the vote process. you can go and vote, get some lunch for republican senators in the anteroom at 1:00. recessed.

[no audio]

senator enzi: call the committee to order. we have a vote order now for covering amendments. those with side-by-sides to the lower point on the list, the first one we start with his --

>> chairman? senator whitehouse. *senator enzi: yes. senator whitehouse: we have been presented for the first time these spending neutral reserve funds. to my knowledge the committee has made no definition of what a spending neutral reserve fund is. we are being asked to vote on this new concept with no committee definition of what it means and there is a theory that offsetting spending that would have to be cut to make it neutral must come out of medicare and social security and other mandatory programs. if what we are being asked to vote on is cut to medicare and social security, that puts us in a difficult position.

we are entitled to know, whatever it is, it is. i don't want to be voting without having the committee to find that term. senator enzi: it is not a new term. we used in 2013. >> as i understand it this would be basically mandatory. spending cut in mandatory spending. that is what we have been told by folks. is that correct? >> it is not a definition of mandatory it is a definition of spending. senator enzi: it is not a definition in mandatory. it is just in spending. >> let me ask. the senator raises a clear point. our understanding is the way that that is written, it would mean that any funding for these reserve funds would come from mandatory spending cards.

we want to be aware that would be the consequences of these spending neutral reserve funds. senator enzi: you asking me to forecast what kind of legislation would go to the floor for it. i can't do that. >> mr. chairman. wouldn't it be of to the committees to decide? senator enzi: the committee. yes. >> it could be discretionary spending. it could be nondiscretionary spending. it could be either one. senator enzi: whatever the committees choose. >> the basic principle here, senator white house has raised, we think the solution to many problems is not just cutting. we think there are huge loopholes for corporations, and

you have to look at spending as well. some amendments, it is a reasonable amendment. i don't know i can support if you are asking to fund it by cutting. if you would do deficit neutral it would make the difference. >> the language i am using, from senator -- the chairman of the senate committee on the budget may revise the allocations of a committee in this resolution. it doesn't look like it is the decision of the committee. it is the decision of the budget committee chairman and the definition of this term would be of significance. >> mr. chairman. >> to be clear on this. all that says, the committees are authorizing the decision and the chairman is the one who

adjust the budget. is that accurate? it is that he changes the budget according to what the committee's decision is. this is done in our committees. >> my senses for my colleague in the finance members, our jurisdiction is mandatory programming. if the direction to the finance committee to go after spending your real estate is mandatory programs. [indiscernible] >> when we say mandatory, we are talking about medicare, social security medicaid, food assistance, agricultural

programs. all of those things that we have made commitments to that are mandatory funding outside of appropriations when we say mandatory. >> one other thing. this is a new fund and we are wondering what it is. spending neutral means spending neutral. spending neutral, you can raise taxes to pay for this because it is spending neutral. it doesn't say revenue neutral. just to make a point. if you are establishing a spending neutral, it doesn't say you can't raise taxes to pay for it. it is a cautionary note. senator enzi: when he to get on with voting. the first amendment is senator sanders deficit neutral tax increasing for job creation. each side gets 30 seconds.

then we vote. senator sanders: everybody in this room understands our infrastructure rose to riches -- roads, it is in bad shape. we need trillions of dollars in investment. when we make that investment we can create millions of decent paying jobs that we need right now, and we pay for this investment by eliminating outrageous loopholes that corporations currently enjoy such as stashing money in the cayman islands paying zero in federal income taxes. senator enzi: the budget resolution already envisions congress fully funding transportation priorities to strengthen the crumbling infrastructure. there will be a new highway bill in may. the budget provides a mechanism that would enable the bill to move and allow all the riser to

find revenue that would extend the life of the highway trust fund. the president proposed the international tax reform. i think there is a committee working on international tax reform. some of that repatriated money would be used. i urge my colleagues to vote no. >> we would ask for a role called vote. >> mr. grassley. no. >> mr. sessions. no. >> mr. graham. >> no. >> mr. portman. mr. johnson. >> mr. whitaker. >> no. >> mr. sanders. yes. >> mr. wyden. >> no. >> mr. warner.

mr. merkley. mr. kane. >> aye. >> mr. chairman. no. >> they ayes are 10, the nays are 12. senator enzi: the amendment is defeated. senator enzi: that is what i will modify my amendment. >> all in favor, say aye. adopted. the sanders second amendment on minimum wage. senator sanders: the simple

truth is millions of americans are working at numbers that are inadequate. if we are concerned about allowing low income people to live with dignity and earn enough money to take care of basic needs it is time for a substantial increase. i would ask you support that amendment. senator enzi: there really isn't any need to have any kind of fund to debate minimum wage. you can bring it to the floor under any circumstances. i would urge a no vote. >> rollcall vote. senator enzi: please call the role. >> no. >> mr. sessions. >> no. >> mr. gray. >> no. >> mr. portman. >> no. >> mr. johnson. >> no.

>> mr. whitaker. >> no. mr. purdue. a>> misstep and mr. merkley. >> aye. >> mr. chairman. >> no. >> mr. chairman, the a'syuees are 10. >> this is the budget point of order relating to the victims of crime fund. this creates a budget point of order to stop congress from mugging the victims of crime act and allowing the most vulnerable in our society to be protected instead of continuing to be victimized in their own homes and having congress rob the fund

does designed to protect them. i think we can go on a voice vote. >> all those in favor say syaye. that has been adopted. >> we have a problem we know is coming. sequestered. based on the ryan marriott agreement, a sickly it makes defense and nondefense equally. this keeps us out of a giant nightmare this fall that i know is coming at us if we don't deal with it. irish support. senator enzi: we take seriously modifications to budget control act. we will take a look at that after april 15 when we get the budget done.

there is a highly flexible deficit neutral matter in the resolution. this amendment, the tax-and-spend amendment 150 7 billion increase discretionary spending today, i would urge my colleagues to vote no. senator murray: the underlying bill has $5 trillion of spending cards. in the sequester replacement we would replace it with $137 billion in tax increases. this is a fair and balanced way to do it. it is critically important. it builds on the ryan marriott agreement. it does mean we will not face a nightmare with sequestration this coming fall. senator enzi: do you want a rollcall vote? rollcall vote is requested. please call role. >> mr. grassley. >> no. >> mr. sessions.

>> no. >> mr. graham. >> no. >> mr. johnson. >> no. >> mr. whitaker. >> no. >> mr. purdue. >> no. >> mr. sanders. yes. >> mr. white house. yes. >> mr. merkley. >> yes. >> mr. chairman. >> no. >> they yasys are 10, the nos are 12. senator enzi: next the graham overseas facilities. >> this is a deficit neutral reserve fund to beef up our diplomatic facilities overseas in light of the threats we face. it is a prudent thing to do. senator enzi: anyone wish to

provide opposition? we will proceed to vote. all those in favor say aye. those opposed. the ayes have it. the amendment is passed. next, the white house amendment. senator whitehouse: this amendment would add information to the budget report of the amount of federal revenue that doesn't come into the budget but is dislocated by the tax code. it is important information, a neutral amendment. it does add information like senator johnson's. i urge unanimous passage if i can get that. senator enzi: senator portman. senator portman: i plan to support the amendment.

senator enzi: you should realize section 308 of the congressional budget act requires the committee be provided with tax expenditure projections and those are publicly available. the budget resolution contains annual revenue estimates that include all tax expenditures. section amendment can be accomplished by changing the total revenue line a core domain -- lyon accordingly. -- line accordingly. i would urge my colleagues to vote no. rollcall vote is requested. >> mr. grassley. >> no. >> mr. sessions. >> no. >> mr. crapo.

>> no. >> mr. toomie. >> no. >> mr. corker. >> no. >> mr. sanders. >> aye. >> misstep and mr. warner. >> aye. >> mr. kane. >> mr. chairman. >> no. >> the yays are 16, the nays are 6. >> that amendment is adopted. this is a democrat side-by-side. >> i was told you wanted to

wait. >> we are ready. >> have you got to see the side-by-side? >> no. none of us have. >> why don't we wait and do it with the side-by-side. senator enzi: we will move that down further in the list so everyone can review the side-by-side. [inaudible] senator enzi: the next amendment is the senator stevanbenow amendment.

>> i have had a chance to look at the reserve fund side-by-side amendment. the way i look at it, it is identical to my amendment >> will you talk into the microphone. senator sanders: it concludes the language without raising new revenue. we are agreeing with your basic tenants. we are making it deficit neutral. senator portman: i would be happy to support the alternative . this is an opportunity to go on record. it is an important statement to make on export promotion. it is not to increase spending on revenue. i would be willing to accept this alternative if my

colleagues would like to have a voice vote. to make a deficit neutral result. senator sanders: i think the senator very much. >> all those in favor say aye. opposed. accepted. senator enzi: senator stabenow: would be next. she asked to change it. i have not been able to read it. wait. we are asking you wait. senator stabenow: i understand you asked me to wait to the end of the grouping. >> way to the end? senator enzi: hopefully we can have it reviewed by them.

senator stabenow: we made a small change. senator enzi: ok. we will see if we can comply with that. the johnson on long-term spending. senator johnson: i'm hoping we have that bipartisan spirit, information is a good thing. we need to define it properly and admit we have it. my amendment is simple. the big screen, the definition is the theory of demographic problem. all these promises made, we don't have a way to pay for it. asking cdl when they report their fiscal scenario as senator kaine suggested, reports the dollar amount for the next 30 years. i am hoping we can voice vote

this. >> if i could complement the senator on the biggest exhibit we've seen. senator johnson: isn't that nice? senator enzi: all those in favor say aye. opposed. the amendment is passed. next is the warner amendment on higher education notification. senator warner: the irs ought to allow american citizens to know if they are the victims of identity theft, if the irs has the information. we hope the irs would move on this administratively. they have not. senator enzi: i hope we can voice vote this. >> it would give the irs to share confidential information

with someone who has been a victim of identity theft. senator warner: that the irs knows, interpreting the regulations that they cannot even tell that victim that they ir identity has been stolen. senator enzi: having been inconvenienced fairly recently i think we should improve the ability to respond. they do have some sort of program, and they can work through it. it probably can be improved. it is a dangerous thing if it gets worse and worse. senator enzi: any objection to voice voting this? all those in favor say aye. opposed. the amendment passes. the next one is the winner cbo score. sen.: wicker: in order not to

run afoul of the requirement of the committee, i delete from my amendment, the words "our ranking member" so that the chairman of the senate or house budget committee may make this request. basically, this is along the lines of the white house and johnson amendments, providing as much information as we can about the impact of major spending legislation. chairman enzi: opposition? >> was that a modification of the amendment? ok. chairman enzi: so we would be voting on the amendment as

modified? any objection to a voice vote? seeing none. all those in favor? those opposed? it passes. the next one is the senator baldwin amendment. sen. baldwin: i too would like to modify my amendment to strike the ranking member and keep to the long tradition of the committee in both the house and senate, but as a reminder to all, this is the amendment that has the joint committee on taxation provide a supplemental estimate that evaluates the distributional effect of revenue changes across income categories

and other useful information for us to have if we evaluate tax policy. i urge a voice vote. chairman enzi: any opposition? seeing none. all those in favor of the amendment? those opposed? >> mr. chairman. chairman enzi: senator portman. sen. portman: i would just thank you for dropping the nontraditional approach in terms of who can ask for it, but second, with regard to the capability of the committee, i hope we will have the opportunity to discuss that with them. hopefully it is something we can work out as we move forward. [inaudible] chairman enzi: the next

amendment then is the corker on the ca caps. sen. corker: i would hope this would be abducted by voice. when we are raising the caps or transferring money from the general funds into the highway trust fund, to keep us from using gimmicks, we would have a 30-year score instead of just 10. the 10-year score is one that guides us, but the 30-year will let us know if we are using gimmicks, like we did last year on the highway trust fund. you are actually losing money. i hope this could be unanimously approved. chairman enzi: opposition? seeing none. we will do this by voice vote unless there is an objection. all those in favor? those opposed?

that one is adopted. next one is merkley student loans. sen. merkley: i think we can all recognize that student debt is having a huge impact on the sense of opportunity among our children, and that this prescribes no particular solution, whether it is lower interest rates, whether it is enhancing of the grants or other programs, improving the stafford loans, whatever it is the bipartisan group can come together for, this provides the reserve fund to help accommodate, recognize that this is a significant problem facing america, that we should try to address. chairman enzi: i think that we are all concerned about the cost of college and the student loan debt. i note that the average graduating senior owes $33,000 in student loan debt.

that has eclipsed credit card debt at the present time. one reason why the chairman retains the reserve fund is because it is due up for reauthorization and that should be an appropriate vehicle for any specific reforms that want to reduce the cost of college and the need for student borrowing. i look forward to working with chairman alexander and senator merkley and the rest of the people on the committee to make sure that we get the higher education act reauthorized before it is out of date and joins the list of 260 that aren't. i urge my colleagues to vote no. is there a request for a rollcall? the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. grassley. >> no. mr. sessions. mr. crapo.

mr. graham. mr. portman. mr. toomey. mr. johnson. ms. a vote. mr. wicker. mr. corker. mr. perdue. mr. sanders. mr. wyden. ms. stabenow. mr. white house. mr. warner. mr. merkley. ms. baldwin. mr. kane. mr. king. mr. chairman. chairman enzi: no. clerk: the yeas are 11. the nays are 11. chairman enzi: on a tie vote the amendment fails. the next one is the perdue amendment. sen. perdue: thank you, mr. chairman. this creates a spending neutral reserve fund aimed at subjecting

it to the regular appropriation process. the last thing we need right now is a rogue regulator out there without any oversight of congress. thank you. chairman enzi: opposition? >> mr. chairman, the cfa be is funded like all other bank regulators to insulate it from the type of influence that would damage its regulatory role. it is overseen in numerous ways, including an independent audit monitoring by the inspector general, mandatory reporting to congress. we will make testimony before the banking committee and the oversight council to overturn cfpb regulations. we need to protect this group that does such a fabulous job of protecting consumers. chairman enzi: i urge my colleagues to vote yes.

clerk: mr. grassley. >> aye. >> mr. sessions. mr. crapo. mr. graham. mr. portman. ms. ayotte. mr. wicker. mr. corker. mr. perdue. mr. sanders. >> no. >> ms. murray. mr. wyden. ms. stabenow. mr. white house. esther warner. mr. merkley. mr. kane. mr. king. mr. chairman. chairman enzi: yes. clerk: the yeas are 12. the nays are 10. chairman enzi: the amendment has failed. next one -- the amendment has passed. yes, the amendment has passed. sorry.

next one then is the kaine amendment. i think there is a side-by-side. sen. kaine: thank you, mr. chair. this is to promote cte education, cosponsored by senators baldwin and portman. chairman enzi: any opposition? seeing none. we can do a voice vote. all in favor? those opposed. it is past. next, the ayotte amendment. this is a democrat side-by-side on this one. has the side-by-side been distributed? >> mr. chairman, can i move my vote after? we are waiting on a ruling from parliamentarian. chairman enzi: i couldn't hear you. >> i'm waiting for a ruling from the parliamentarian.

can i move my vote until the end? chairman enzi: ok, the next one is the wyden for schools. there is a side-by-side which i think has been handed out already. on a side-by-side, two minutes to debate each side. sen. wyden: my amendment creates a deficit neutral reserve fund to protect america's treasures and grow our rural economies in a balanced way. the side-by-side ties the well-being of rural economies and our spectacular treasurers

we already are two unsustainable levels. i hope that we will look carefully at the numbers here, because the programs involved already get a significant amount of their funding from logging. this amendment would jack up that logging level far beyond what is sustainable, and so this is in effect -- my amendment that builds on the balanced approach that we've had, helping rural economies, protecting our treasures, versus chipping again at the environmental laws that are going to harm our treasures and aren't sustainable. chairman enzi: well, the

side-by-side does require that there be something done for the health of national forests. there are two ways that i ought to approach this. we require them not to log and then we pay them for the taxes that we would have gotten had we logged. for michael mines, where we are trying to put them out of business, i ought to secure schools for coal mines. i won't. we need to keep utilizing the stewardship of what we've been given. i know that local and rural economies used to depend on robust dentistry. -- robust industry. we can make changes that enable that industry to return and thrive again. an increase timber sales or reduce the severity of wildfires, which i'm working with senator crapo and senator wyden on. my side-by-side precludes repeated extensions of the secure rural school paid for with tax increases.

sen. wyden: can i have a brief rebuttal? these programs already generate significant amounts of money from logging. the whole point of legislative effort in the west and other heavily logged areas is to increase that logging level in a sustainable way. what this amendment does is go beyond that and in effect force us to raise logging levels many times beyond what is sustainable. i think we will regret that. rural communities will not get the economic everett oddities they want. -- economic opportunities they want. we will see our environmental treasures suffer. >> mr. chairman. chairman enzi: senator crapo. sen. crapo: i'd intend to vote for both of these amendments.

as you've indicated, senator wyden and i have been working on a solution for both the sgr and the wildfire fighting problems that we face in the west. i think that his amendment will be very helpful in helping us to achieve the resolution that was issued. i also agree with the chairman that we need to increase our timber production in the west and that we have unreasonably depressed. i support the chairman's approach to focus on that as well. i just want to indicate that i will be voting for both amendments. sen. wyden: mr. chairman, i would ask for a rollcall. chairman enzi: we will have a rollcall vote on the wyden amendment. i have no problem with that. so we will vote on yours first. and people can vote how they

want. i might take senator crapo's approach. the clerk will call the roll. 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. stata now -- ms. stabenow. mr. white house. mr. warner. mr. merkley. ms. baldwin. mr. kane. esther king. mr. chairman. chairman enzi: are there any wishing to change their vote? seeing none, please report the vote. clerk: mr. chairman, the yeas

are 18, the nays are four. chairman enzi: we have a vote on the side-by-side. i request a rollcall vote. clerk: mr. grassley. mr. sessions. mr. crapo. mr. graham. mr. portman. esther to me. ms. ayotte. mr. corker. mr. perdue. mr. sanders. mr. wyden. ms. stabenow. mr. white house. mr. warner. mr. merkley. ms. baldwin. mr. kane. mr. king. mr. chairman. chairman enzi: >> aye. clerk: the yeas are 12, the nays are 10.

chairman enzi: next is the sessions amendment on welfare. not sure if there's a side-by-side. sen. sessions: colleagues, i believe we are spending an extraordinary amount on welfare and reform. we can do good things for poor people and help them better with the $1 trillion we are spending. $750 billion a year on this program that doesn't include medicaid, but medicaid is designed for low income people in real poverty. i think we need to help those people come out of that situation, come into a centralized office where the leaders know all the funds they are getting and help them craft a future including job training. so, thank you. chairman enzi: opposition? >> i would like to ask a

question. this says, to help struggling americans on the road to financial independence. i assume that would mean childcare, minimum wage, equal pay, job training. this fund could be used for what we believe are progressive ways to help people? sen. corker: -- sen. sessions: absolutely. we just need to craft a better system instead of a housing subsidy, a foodstamp subsidy subsidies of all kinds. i think we can be a lot better if we do it right. but this wouldn't mandate anything. it just provides facilitated legislation to accomplish it. >> we've got a side-by-side which will be offering in a moment, which includes virtually all of senator sessions' noble aims, but makes it clear that at

a time when so many people are struggling, that we do not cut benefits to the most vulnerable people in this country. what senator sessions has lumped together in his welfare programs includes the earned income tax credit, supplementary ssi, meals on wheels, and many other programs. i, at a time when so many people are struggling, do not want to see those programs cut. we want to make the program more efficient. we want more job training. sen. sessions: briefly, he says there would be no cuts to benefits for low income americans. that means no program could be eliminated. >> that is not what the intent is, the general funding is not cut. sen. sessions: i just said no cuts the benefits for low income americans. i would say that his amendment

doesn't fulfill his goals, i would think, and urge support for mine. chairman enzi: still 30 seconds left. any additional comments? seeing none. the vote would be first on the sessions amendment. i assume we want rollcall votes on both of these. the clerk will call the roll on the sessions amendment. 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. esther white house. mr. warner. mr. merkley. ms. baldwin. mr. kane.

mr. king. mr. chairman. chairman enzi: aye. clerk: mr. chairman, the yeas a re 15, the nays are eight. chairman enzi: that amendment has been adopted. >> the side-by-side includes creased job opportunities increase welfare programs, and potential -- protection for benefit cuts. this is the same amendment as senator sessions' amendment but understanding that there are some important programs, such as the earned income tax credit, ssi, funding for cervical cancer protection, meals on wheels, and many other programs. what i do not want to see is those programs cut. of course we can make changes but it is important that we do not cut programs for the most

vulnerable people in this country. sen. sessions: i understand what senator sanders is suggesting. as is so often the case, i think it is excessive commitment to the status quo. we really need to consider some of these programs should be consolidated even eliminated and others increased. if we do that in a creative way i believe we could improve benefits for poor people in america without any doubt. i do think that his language constricts the reform we need to do and therefore i think it is part of the problem and i would ask my colleagues to vote no. chairman enzi: rollcall will be expected then. the clerk will call the roll. 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. mary. mr. wyden. ms. stated no. mr. white house. mr. warner. mr. merkley. ms. baldwin. mr. kane. mr. king. mr. chairman. chairman enzi: no. clerk: the yeas are 10, the nays are 12. chairman enzi: that amendment has been defeated. the next one would be the ayotte amendment which has the side-by-side. sen. ayotte: thank you. i am a deficit neutral reserve fund to strengthen our civilian

workforce focused on military readiness and national security. i amended my amendment to make it a deficit neutral reserve fund so it can address spending and revenue, and also to broaden it. it goes across the civilian workforce to look at those national security functions. thank you, mr. chairman. chairman enzi: that has been modified then. the side-by-side? >> mr. chairman, i'm not asking congress to vote against the ayotte amendment, but what i'm offering is something i believe is a much stronger commitment to protecting our military readiness at a time of tremendous stress around the world and to this country as well. i think we have to set priorities and determine where revenue is coming from so it is not just a typical deficit neutral reserve fund, but that we are identifying the way that

we are going to strengthen our civilian workforce, and so i am tying that to an amendment -- provision of mine, that would prevent u.s. companies from getting tax benefits for moving jobs overseas, and ending tax loopholes like inversion. we have been trying to say, if you pick up and move for another country, that taxpayers don't have to pay for the move. at the minimum, we ought to be doing that. there are so many ways in which the public is offended, we are all offended, that the tax code is allowing loopholes that are taking jobs overseas. let's close those and put that money to good use. i would suggest that protecting our military readiness by strengthening our civilian workforce would be a pretty good use of those dollars. i would ask -- i'm going to vote

for both of these, but i would urge support for my amendment. chairman enzi: the ayotte amendment provides a more focused approach to discussing the need for support for the workforce. the amendment would make the u.s.'s already uncompetitive corporate tax rate even higher. we already have a tax reform in the works. that does not require the amendment. i would recommend my colleagues vote no on the side-by-side and yes on the ayotte amendment. sen. stabenow: i would just say, we hope for tax reform and we would like to see that happen, but i can't imagine we ought to allow a loophole to continue that lets businesses pick up and move, and the workers and taxpayers foot the bill for the moving expenses. it seems to me we ought to be able to close that one. chairman enzi: the first vote

will be on the ailed amendment. the clerk will call the roll. clerk: mr. grassley. mr. sessions. mr. crapo. mr. graham. mr. boardman. mr. toomey. mr. johnson. ms. ayotte. mr. wicker. mr. corker. mr. perdue. mr. sanders. mr. murray. ms. stabenow. mr. white house. mr. warner. mr. merkley. ms. baldwin. mr. kane. mr. king. mr. chairman. chairman enzi: aye. the yeas are 22, the nays are zero. chairman enzi: the ailed amendment is passed. now, the amendment.

the clerk will call the roll. clerk: [rollcall] mr. chairman, the yeas are 10, the nays are 12. chairman enzi: the amendment has been defeated. last is the stabenow amendment on health care. are you ready? sen. stabenow: i understand that the changes being viewed as a new amendment. i'm happy to proceed, but if there's a concern, i can withdraw and bring it up at the next congress.

i'm happy to proceed. chairman enzi: we will put it in the next tranche. that concludes that round of votes. we are ready to do amendments again. i don't have any recap on how many more amendments there are. if anybody wants to volunteer that, that would be helpful to people to know how much longer we are going. do you have any idea on your side? >> [inaudible] sen. sanders: our side has a number of amendments. i don't know how many. chairman enzi: it is my understanding it would be senator king's turn on your side. sen. king: mr. chairman, and

armed services and intelligence committees this year, we have heard powerful and very convincing testimony from our military forces across the board and also from the intelligence community about the dangers of sequester. the dangers are in readiness modernization. we've had direct testimony that if the sequester is imposed this year, american lives will be put at risk. decline in intelligence capability, decline in reconnaissance capability, and as i mentioned, modernization. it will be a catastrophe. also in nondefense, in the intelligence community, but also people, research and development, headstart start education, job training, national parks, housing, senior services. this idea of sequester was designed to be stupid and it is.

it was designed to provoke us to find a better solution. so i'm offering a deficit neutral reserve fund to do just that. i know that the chairman has a provision in the mark on page 48 which deals with this. my amendment clarifies that, to make it clear that we need to resolve the sequester issue on both sides of the ledger, defense and nondefense, and it suggests finding the funds for that both from mandatory spending -- and i do not mean benefit levels, but there are many areas of mandatory spending where there can be cuts, as well as receipts, our revenues. it is an attempt to have a placeholder for legislation for us to work on in order to deal with the problem of sequester.

these solutions won't be easy, but i think we have to remind ourselves that as the sequester impacts are very real, whether it is headstart slots or lack of intelligence in one of the most intense and dangerous times of international relations in our recent history. that is the purpose of the amendment. i urge support. chairman enzi: probably one of the best to talk on this would be senator ayotte, who worked diligently to get an amendment a provision that is already in the budget resolution, that would be duplicative of this, as we already included it. she was working on the same programs diligently with a number of people, including senator kaine and senator king. what is in the budget already allows for both defense and nondefense and any offset. i think we've already

accomplished what is in this amendment. sen. king: one of my concerns with the provision is the use of the word "or." if that were was changed to " and," i would withdraw my amendment. chairman enzi: we will check on that. we won't be voting on this immediately. >> mr. chairman, can i ask senator king a question? i think there is widespread agreement that we want to end sequestration. and need additional funding to do that. is your suggestion that one of the options are cuts to social security and medicare to fund the ending of sequestration? sen. king: there's a great deal of mandatory spending that is

not social security and medicare. i'm not talking about benefit levels. for example, under medicare, there's a lot of revenue to be realized by bargaining for drugs. there's $500 billion a year of other mandatory outside of social security and health care. we don't know what the solution is going to be. i want to draw it as broadly as possible. sen. sanders: i agree that there are ways we can bring in more revenue. unless i'm mistaken, the way i read it, this would open the path for cuts to social security and medicare. would it be possible to sit down and rewrite your amendment? sen. king: the solution will come from whatever piece of legislation is brought forward. i was trying to keep it as broad as possible so we would have all the options on the table. there's a lot of mandatory spending that is not tied up in actual benefits to people.

sen. sanders: but it does include the possibility of cuts to social security and medicare. chairman enzi: because of the way our committees are set up if we put the word "and" in their, we could be asking defense to talk about nondiscretionary instead of just changing within their jurisdiction. this wouldn't preclude changes in both jurisdictions. with "and" in there, it might eliminate flexibility and violate some capability. sen. king: i don't think it would be a sensible reading to say that would require the armed services committee to talk about headstart. what it makes clear is, if we are going to relieve sequester it needs to be on both sides of the ledger. that is my intent. chairman enzi: next amendment.

senator sessions. sen. sessions: colleagues, this is something that many of you have voted on before. some may be in accord with me. this deals with the tax credits provided to illegal workers people who are unlawfully in the country, who overstayed visas and are now working filing i-10 documents not having social security numbers, and are receiving tax refunds or tax credits, defined by cbo as a direct expenditure of the united states. according to the inspector

general, 87% of applicants contained errors. many were accompanied by fraudulent documents. more than 55,000 were used multiple times on approximately 102,000 tax returns, with refunds totaling more than $200 million. it really amounts to a welfare payment. many of them pay no taxes at all because their incomes are low. these tax credits are direct payments from the u.s. taxpayers to people who are here unlawfully. the inspector general said this would provide an additional incentive for people to enter the country unlawfully. to have a lawful system of immigration, the first thing we should do is not reward it by government benefits. that is so fundamental to our system. according to the irs, if the law were changed irs would change its programs accordingly. they contend they don't have the

money, the authority, to change it, as the inspector general recommended. it is estimated this change would save $7.6 billion in taxpayer money. the american working person has no duty to pay direct cash benefits to people in the country unlawfully. 71% of immigrant households with children are receiving public benefits now. mr. chairman, i think this is the right thing to do, and it also provides that persons who receive social security numbers under any executive amnesty also would not have the benefit of receiving these tax credits. i would say the joint tax committee has calculated that

this would result in $1.1 billion in savings in 2018 alone. i would ask my colleagues to support this one. >> chairman? i think it is not a good idea to be talking about immigration issues piece by piece. several years ago, the senate passed comprehensive immigration reform. unfortunately, our colleagues in the house have not done so. i think what senator sessions is talking about should be incorporated in real immigration reform which deals with all aspects of that initiative. i would mention to senator sessions that into 2012 alone, social security estimates that undocumented workers contributed $12 billion in two social security. these benefits work. these immigrants work and pay

into social security, but they can't collect benefits. it is estimated that around 10% of the $2.8 trillion trust fund for social security can be attributed to undocumented immigrants. cbo has confirmed that these immigrants contribute to economic growth. the point here is, i don't think we should deal with immigration issues piece by piece. i think they should be dealt with comprehensively. i will vote against senator sessions' amendment. chairman enzi: i think we used up all the time on that one. you will get rebuttal at the time we do the vote. senator sanders would be next. sen. sanders: colleagues, we have talked about many important

issues and i know that many more important issues will be coming. the amendment i'm bringing forth now deals perhaps with the most fundamental issue that we can address. that is the integrity of american democracy and our political system. what this amendment does is establishes a deficit neutral reserve fund to allow for a constitutional amendment to overturn citizens united and increase transparency in our political process. on this issue, there are no greater experts in the world than the people sitting around this room. the issue i'm raising today is, are you comfortable with an american political system which is increasingly being dominated by a handful of billionaires, whether they are republicans

whether they are democrats whether they are liberals, whether they are conservatives? do you want to run for office and understand that your campaign will be significantly less important than the independent expenditures that may be spent in that campaign? are we a nation in which we pride ourselves on one person one vote, or do we sit aside and say, you've got a vote, but the koch brothers and other billionaires can spend hundreds and hundreds of million of dollars. the american people are profoundly disgusted with the kind of political system we are evolving into. i will admit, sometimes it works for republicans, sometimes it works for democrats, but at the end of the day, we have got to ask ourselves, do we want a political system in which a handful of billionaires can buy

and sell members of the united states congress? that is really what it is about. i would hope that we allow for this reserve fund to move us toward a constitutional amendment to overturn citizens united and bring transparency. if some billionaire wants to run an ad attacking senator sessions or senator mary, that billionaire should put his face on the tv screen and identify himself. and not be able to hide. i understand that this is a highly sensitive issue. but i would hope that all of us can say that the current system, which is increasingly dominated by billionaires, is not what the american people deserve. i would ask for support for this amendment. chairman enzi: i haven't concentrated on that particular issue, but i've always been in favor of people having to

identify if they were part of an ad. i don't think that takes a constitutional amendment. i hadn't envisioned the budget process setting of constitutional amendments. you have a right to set up one of those anyway without a deficit neutral reserve fund. there's no cost to that other than time sen. sanders: we have a lot of time. chairman enzi: any other opposition? senator to me? sen. toomey: our founding fathers would be appalled if they understood the extent to which we have regulations that limit the ability of people to engage in free speech during campaigns. if people are concerned about outside money that is not fully disclosed, i'd say there is a simple solution. eliminate contribution limits the candidates.

there wouldn't be any reason for people to have outside expenditures. contributions would tend to go to candidates. voters would know who is spending what. people would have to take responsibility for the ads. they wouldn't be outside groups. we have full disclosure. we'd have free speech on political campaigns. i think that's the appropriate resolution. the idea that we should overturn the supreme court recognition of the first amendment i think would be a big mistake. sen. sanders: are we out of time? chairman enzi: there's time for our side if somebody else wanted to speak. moving on, will be by senator crapo. sen. crapo: thank you, mr.

chairman. this is crapo amendment number two. this is a bipartisan amendment and i want to thank senators warner, corker, and markley for joining me on this amendment. it establishes a scorekeeping rule to ensure that increases in guarantee fees for what has been called gp's of fannie mae and freddie mac shall not be used to offset provisions that increase the deficit. during the senate consideration of fiscal year 2014 budget resolution, a similar amendment was cosponsored by every member of the senate banking committee and was included in the budget resolution by unanimous consent. because the senate and house did not adopt the same budget, the point of order is not part of the senate rules and we need to pass this amendment. the purpose of the guarantee fee is to offset fannie mae and freddie mac credit from

defaults. if you use the guarantee fees to offset new spending, you are doubling the revenue. in december of 2011, congress passed a two-month extension of the payroll tax cut that was offset by increasing the gp's for 10 years. this was simply a tax increase on folks in the united states who pay mortgages to justify congressional spending. additional attempts were made to use the extension to cut offsets in other legislation. directing the guarantee fees to the treasury department rather than protecting taxpayers from mortgage losses was used because it technically brings in a new source of revenue. any increase of guarantee fees should be used to protect taxpayers from mortgage losses and as a repayment for the bailout, not for a gimmicky offset.

that's why i'm offering the scorekeeping amendment with senators warner, corker, and markley, to ensure that transfers from fannie mae and freddie mac will not be used to offset increases to the deficit. it is one, a congressional mandated can only be used to increase the deficit and will not be scoreless in offset, and a vote threshold will be required on a provision that spends more or reduces taxes and is offset with a guarantee fee increase, because the fee would not be recognized. i would like to include in the record a letter of support from a broad group of housing and trade associations and a letter of support from housing consumer groups. i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan effort which has broad support. >> yesterday, the fha said

fannie and freddie, not profitable forever, could come back and hit the taxpayers. i would simply point out, and double ecb, national fair housing council, and a variety of groups say go'sp's ought to be kept in. chairman enzi: opposition? seeing no opposition, senator murray. sen. murray: i would like to offer an amendment to build on the reserve funds in the fiscal year 2015 budget for additional investments in programs that support our veterans and service members. there no more solemn promise we make to the nation than our commitment to care for the men and women who serve our country. these men who put their lives

and limbs on the line to protect our country and our way of life, we need to meet that congress -- that promise to care for them. this builds on the existing reserve fund to build additional support for programs that help our veterans and service members access health, job training, and specialty services, and would allow us to expand the eligibility for the comprehensive caregivers support program to veterans of all eras. this is a critical program that helps our veterans stay in their own homes and gives them a much better quality of life, and is much more cost effective. the amendment would also provide support to ask but a processing of claims and bring down the backlog, contribute to infrastructure needs including major magical -- major medical facility leases, and reduce times for health care. finally, it would help provide

fertility treatment to injured veterans and service members so they can realize their dreams of starting a family. it is long past time to provide this type of modern medicine. i keep pushing to provide additional support to get veterans the care they deserve and improve programs as they transition into civilian life. we are moving in the right direction. the work is far from over. this amendment will make sure we can continue that work especially improving care and programs to support our veterans and service members. i think this is a priority we can all agree on. i urge its adoption. i would ask unanimous consent. chairman enzi: without objection. we already have a section 307 which is a deficit neutral reserve fund. it could include these things, but doesn't specify these things. anybody else wish to comment in opposition? >> mr. chairman, i would ask

unanimous consent to be added to the amendment. chairman enzi: without objection. senator sanders? sen. sanders: this is a very important amendment. the former chair of the veterans committee strongly supports what she is trying to do. chairman enzi: my question would be to what you did last year with the legislation. did you need a deficit neutral? sen. murray: this allows us to do a lot of programs that will not be allowed under your amendment. i think it is very important. chairman enzi: the next amendment would be by senator toomey. sen. toomey: mr. chairman, i'd like to offer an amendment after senator graham offers his.

it is more appropriate to do it at that time, i think. i think that would make more sense. chairman enzi: without objection. since we will have two in a row from this side, i will move to the other side to have another amendment, then come to senator johnson. sen. stabenow: thank you. if you would allow me a one-to punch, i would like to introduce the medicare amendment that i had before the changes a date, from 2014, to indicate the same budget year as defined by the cbo. i can talk about that later. basically, the same amendment not to cut medicare. what i'd like to do now is offer an amendment to maintain a senate point -- a budget point

of order on health legislation that would add to the deficit. the point of this is that we have in front of us a budget that would repeal the affordable care act, that 16.4 million americans now or using the get health care for themselves and their families. the uninsured rate has fallen from over 20% to 13%, which is extraordinary. we all know there are fewer americans in bankruptcy now. there are folks receiving tax cuts to be able to afford more coverage. we all know that there's more opportunities to make sure you don't get dropped and can find health insurance if you have a pre-existing condition. what we have in this budget is a very interesting situation. i disagree totally with eliminating the affordable care

act, but if this budget is going to do that, then it needs to make sure and recognize that adds to the deficit. this amendment would strike language exempting any long-term deficit created by repealing the affordable care act from a point of order. we have a point of order in the budget for anything that adds to the deficit, but we have a section that specifically excludes the affordable care act from that. think about it. this budget is conceding the fact that the affordable care act has reduced the deficit, and repealing the law would increase the deficit, and in fact the most recent cbo statement shows that repealing the affordable care act would increase the deficit by $210 billion. you can't rig the rules on both sides.

this particular budget, among other things, keeps the revenue raise of tax increases from the affordable care act, while cutting health care for people. then, to mask the fact that it would add to the deficit there's a specific exclusion on page 69 that would exempt the affordable care act from being counted when it comes to increasing our long-term deficit. that is not fair. i would argue that is budget gimmickry. i think if you are going to eliminate the affordable care act, you have to assume the consequences of that. one of those, according to the congressional budget office, is the fact that our deficit will go up. this amendment would strike that provision to maintain a point of order on any health care legislation that would add to the deficit. chairman enzi: first of all, i

think that any repeal is going to take at least 60 votes, probably 67 votes. so we are talking about some things -- i'm a little confused. i've got one that says medicare and another one that -- they aren't numbered, so i'm having trouble telling which one i'm supposed to be on at the moment. sen. stabenow: i indicated when i started, i was resubmitting the medicare one east on a change that relates to going from 2014 to a different language on the budget year. i just put that in for the record and didn't talk about it because i talked about it before. essentially, i was offering both -- your staff asked that i redo it, so we've redone it.

i'm speaking so that the health bills don't add to the deficit amendment, which would make sure that we have honest budgeting as we go forward with the cost related to repealing the affordable care act. chairman enzi: ok. sen. sessions: i'm going to offer an amendment to deal with some of these issues. the obama care act counts over $400 billion in medicare cuts to pay for this new program. cbo said you can't simultaneously use the money on medicare and spend it on new programs. we double counted that money. this says you can't have any more cuts, i suppose, anymore reductions for medicare, but our colleagues have done in passing

the affordable care act by far the largest cut of spending for medicare in the history of the program. they've opposed everything else in previous. also, we didn't even use it to pay the doctors. anyway, i think that we need to get honest about how we handle medicare funding. i don't think this would be the right approach to it. thank you, mr. chairman. chairman enzi: i would just add, like i said, it would take 60 votes to make any change around here. it is probably going to take 67 if we change the affordable care act. hopefully, we can work together to make corrections that need to be made to things. i know that that passed under reconciliation, so they didn't have to have 60 votes. there's some animosity on our

side toward that having happened. but i don't think the amendment is necessary. sen. stabenow: mr. chairman, it is more to the point of the fact that the deficit indications are not included in this budget. chairman enzi: the next amendment would be by lindsey graham. he is not here. johnson? senator johnson? sen. johnson: thank you, mr. chairman. this is an amendment to address the problem of improvident, i like that word, but i don't like the result, of state local governments that have increased unfunded estimates that those unfunded liabilities were approaching $5 trillion. and this simply creates -- i am

happy to change that to deficit neutral. to prevent the use of federal funds for the bailout of state and local governments. it simply would not be fair to states that actually are fiscally responsible like wisconsin whose pensions are 99% funded. oregon is over 90%. tennessee is over 90%. with the looming deficits we have in our country, we can't afford the federal government to be bailing out state and local governments. >> i am sure senator johnson would work with me to make sure we don't bailout those on wall street without destroying the american economy and leave millions of people without their homes and jobs that are lifesaving. i'm sure you want to join in

making sure we don't bailout defense contractors to the tune of tens of billions of dollars. you have to look at it situation by situation and move in that direction. >> mr. chair, this will sound like a flip question but why do you need a death -- deficit neutral reserve fund to not bail someone out? 's seems putting zero would be the best thing to do so you are not going to be bailing them out. >> the main point is we should not be bailing out state and local governments. clicks i think we may be expecting them to their less out. any opposition?

>> i have a question for the author as to how you define that. local transportation money community development block grants. funding of health centers? i don't know if we've bailed out cities or counties or states, per se. we certainly support services. what are you suggesting? senator: to prohibit federal funds to going state and local funds to prevent receivership and facilitate exit firm receivership. except for national disasters. and that is what is contemplating here. those cities, like detroit.

>> they did not ask for a bailout. we welcome you to come take a look. senator: maybe not government officials, but i want on record that we will not be bailing out those states. those local governments that might be going into receivership or bankruptcy. chairman: i don't see senator whitehouse. senator warner i guess would be next. senator warner: this would build on those to help veterans. one of the biggest challenges is to get the v.a. to recognize change. there is a process that started

that has gone to 40 different law schools around the country where veterans and clinics were set up to help process veterans claims. there is still too large a backlog on these claims. it would not cost the government to diamond would say we ought to encourage more of these law schools to create these veterans clinics. it is obviously good for the taxpayer. the has been very slow adopting this and i think it would help nudge something along that has been uniformly supported. chairman: is there opposition? next would be senator purdue. senator purdue: can i ask consent that my amendment

dealing with tax credits for unlawful immigrants be amended or modified to make clear that when it says benefits for aliens, after those words they failed to state that -- >> the author has the right to amend his amendment. senator purdue: thank you. >> did you have another amendment? senator purdue: i will speak to senator graham's amendment. i will defer to him. chairman: senator, did you have another amendment? senator ayotte: i have an amendment. it is -- i have an amendment

that is a deficit neutral funds to provide energy efficiency. from my perspective, i think affordable energy drives our economy. and we need to ensure that we protect our natural resources. my state in new hampshire is a beautiful state where we have been able to balance finding things like energy efficiency and protecting our natural resources. this amendment would allow us to pursue and all of the above energy strategy and look at how we develop the best energy domestic wise and the best technology to protect our environment. chairman: is there opposition? >> i am not opposed. i think this touches on all the

right issues. i would urge senator ayotte to get some of her colleagues on board with this concept. it would be a deficit neutral reserve fund. we need to invest billions of dollars in energy efficiency and sustainable energy. her amendment is exactly the writing but we have to go beyond the deficit neutral reserve fund. chairman: next would be senator baldwin. senator baldwin: i would like to bring the baldwin amendment to strike section 405 of the budget resolution. this amendment is also cosponsored by senator warner. eliminating a point of order

against reconciliation that would increase the deficit or reduce a surplus. i can see no good reason why we should be making it easier to increase the deficit that the majority has given great voice to during the opening remarks of this. if it is important, it ought to be paid for. it's a very simple amendment and i want to yield the rest of my time to senator warner. senator warner: i think those of us that have been on this committee for some time, we remember senator conrad. it was put in, if memory serves

correctly, against the wishes of many on our side. it's an plea said if you're going to use reconciliation and use these extraordinary rules, let's stay true. i find it more than curious that one of the most important tools in this budgetary process, to make sure that we don't add to the deficit. if we are going to use extraordinary actions like reconciliation, anyone who is in favor of taking on the crisis of $18.5 trillion in debt that goes up $20 billion per point of additional interest rates. i fail to understand that why one of the protections, why

anyone would want to take that out. >> the reason is because it was put in just after you did the affordable care act. so that nobody could do anything with the affordable care act. so what this section of the budget does is repeal provisions -- well, this resolution repeals provisions to restrict the equal treatment of all reckless alleviation -- reconciliation bills. if this will eliminate it prior to 2008, you are right. the bird rule demands that reconciliation bills do not increase the deficit in the long term. a long-standing historical protection there.

the next amendment -- senator portman? senator portman: thank you, mr. chairman. offering a deficit neutral reserve fund, altered it to make it from spending neutral to deficit neutral and removing the appropriate references. it talks about reducing redundancy and improving access? recall that we did pass legislation that helps in this regard. the career act was sponsored by senator bennett and myself.

although we have made some progress, we have a long way to go. the amendment discussed earlier regarding career and technical with senator kaine and myself, to the point we made earlier this is about taking this to worker retraining programs. we know that approximately $18 billion is being spent to administer 47 different training programs. 44 of those 47 programs are viewed to be overlapping with one another. with regard to the programs, little is known about the effectiveness of the programs. we talked about the need for not just more jobs, but better jobs. it will come from better training and closing the skills gap. we are spending $18 billion a

year and we don't know where the money is going. this is an opportunity to improve access and enhance the outcomes. i would urge my colleagues to support the amendment on worker retraining. chairman: opposition comments? seeing none, we can move on senator berkeley. senator berkeley: we had deficit neutral reserve fund, and we had the opportunity to address that. engineering and mathematics but i am proposing that we strike that out. science, technology, engineering, mathematics

incredibly important to many of the high-growth areas of the economy. these programs are offered as afterschool programs that provide a tremendous opportunity for kids that would otherwise be heading home to an anti-house -- to an empty house. this is where they learn teamwork leadership, journalistic skills. that has been a tremendously successful program in certain parts of my state. but it is so small an investment that not many schools are able to participate. and the opportunity for us to be able to expand these programs. thank you, mr. chairman.

chairman: i have already provided for two to do amendments consecutively. i will do a second one over. mr. kane has not gotten to do one on that side and we have to on this side. senator kaine: i have an amendment for establishing a neutral fund relating to ongoing initiatives to bolster resilience of mission-critical defense infrastructure for impact by climate change. the amendment looks to support efforts to withstand impacts from sea level.

it is home of the largest table installation as well as nearly 15 other installations. it is occurring much faster than the historical rate of one for the century. they rise anywhere from 1.5 to seven feet by 2100 and the study shows the main road into the largest naval base in the world will be inundated by daily ties. this has always been a flood prone region but it'd knowledge is climate change has a significant factor. a dod witness said, you're not feel me place affected. try running a military base. this is affecting military bases all over the country. they released a climate adaptation.

the analysis last summer of how the dod can improve its infrastructure planning and processes. he used three states as an example. alaska, california, virginia. with the prospect of a background in the future we would have to avoid. maybe avoid a scaled-down that i think would be appropriate. i would like to ask support. chairman: this is meant to be flippant. it doesn't that deep in your report? -- doesn't that deepen your report? senator grant: this will increase the outgoing account by $38 billion.

i don't know if we have the charts on isoil. in 2011, we entered into sequestration. there is the chart somewhere around here, i thought. that shows us where isil is. they basically didn't exist then. i am trying to increase the -- right. they are probably coming. the reason i didn't increase the account is the president has rightly said we may leave more troops behind in afghanistan than we planned. the number is going to climb. they are completely different in terms of what we expected. we pay for this increase by taking the savings outside of

the 10 year window and moving them forward. i would like to yield to senator ayotte who has been the champion of this cause. senator ayotte: i am a cosponsor of this amendment. given the threats we face around the world, our military presence in both iraq and the airstrikes we have, this is the situation and what we need to do to protect our interest. since the budget control act passed. this is appropriate to increase money given the threats that we face. i want to thank senator graham for his leadership on the. senator to me -- senator toomey: i want to reinforce the great work they have done. after legitimate concern, i share their concern.

they can be increased significantly without any offset. while we need to increase the defense spending, in a long term viability, frankly, as a nation, we need to rein in spending. it is entirely necessary on the defense side. i will reluctantly support the amendment in the form that it's and now. despite the fact that i don't approve of the mechanism of the offset that is contemplated i this amendment. but i appreciate senator graham and other members working with me on an amendment that i will introduced immediately after this. it hopes to ensure that this device is not the permanent way of a funding shortfall.

>> it's not my goal to increase spending overall, it gets -- one last thing about sequestration. there are programs exempted. one of them is our own pay. i will go when we get on the floor, what we left out of sequestration. chairman: opposition? >> chairman, this discussion is really quite extraordinary. hearing after hearing, we hear the republican colleagues say the deficit is killing us. the national debt is killing us. we have to cut programs for the children, elderly, sick and poor. all of that rhetoric and all of that discussion disappears.

what we are looking at now, undisputedly, is a total budget gimme. they are saying, let's spend $38 billion more on defense but let's not count that as part is the -- part of the deficit. it will be in the overseas account. but it israel money. -- but it is real money. we are already spending more than the next nine countries. at the very least, i hope my republican colleagues would remember what they have been lecturing the american people about year after year. you want a debate, let's debate. this amendment should be defeated. chairman: there is still 41 seconds left.

>> when senator kyle and i were working hard to use the overseas account to address the doctor six in medicare, we were told it was a fake account. let's put it together and get rid of both of them. now we're talking about taking it and moving it ahead into the 10 year window. to increase defense spending. chairman: time is expired on the amendment. senator toomey: my amendment is in direct response to the amendment that senator graham and others have. my concern is that in the absence of my amendment assuming his amendment succeeds,

we will have significantly increased boko spending. if it is appropriated, which might well occur, the baseline is increased correspondingly. it adds up to a very large number over 10 years. what my amendment would simply do is to ensure that the amount of funding that would be spared from a budget point of order would, in 2017, be the number that would be -- whether or not the amendment would succeed. we don't permanently expand the level of funding. it occurs in one year and not thereafter. chairman: opposition to the too mey amendment? we will go ahead with some additional amendments. we have the next taunraunch of

votes at -- what's reasonable? 4:00? at 4:00. we will cover the ones that we have here so far. i think senator wyden would be next. do you have an amendment? senator wyden: this is the deficit neutral reserve fund to protect medicaid. colleagues, i recognize that this is a controversial issue. i just want understood why i still feel strongly about this. this goes back to the days when i was codirector.

i had a full head of hair and rugged good looks. a long time ago. chairman: beyond my memory. senator wyden: medicaid alone covers 60% of nursing home residents. this is the key to ensuring access for long-term care for vulnerable, low income seniors and persons with disability. i know we are going to have a discussion and throw numbers around. fast and furious is the case. that is what we do with budgets. i want colleagues to understand that if we pass this amendment i am very interested in working with senators on both sides of the aisle and ranking democrats to look at reforms to strengthen this program. i just want us to recognize that

i think this kind of approach is going to put at risk a crucial benefit that millions of grandparents, parents, families rely on from one part of the country. reform? absolutely. there's not one of these programs we can't reform. i look at my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, whether it has been comprehensive reform -- senator craig korn and i have teamed up. a number of you have been part of the important bipartisan efforts where we ensure protection and well-being of vulnerable people and we demonstrate that you can find some real savings. i think the medicaid budget as it is constituted today puts particularly at risk seniors in

long-term care facilities, nursing homes, and medicaid covers 60 percent of that population. i would hope that we pass this amendment and vowed to take a balanced approach that ensures that we recognize what the demographic challenges going to be all about. we have 10,000 seniors turning 65 for years and years to come. this budget i think is going to be particularly harsh on vulnerable older people. i hope colleagues will support the amendment. chairman: in the budget control act, a lot of major programs received no reduction in their growth. medicaid being probably the largest is growing at a substantial percentage every year. it received no reductions at all. neither did food stamps.

i would say that we do need to review how to make medicaid run better. and any good reform has to be more than tinkering around the edges. it is a program for low income people. i think we should not adopt this amendment because senator wyden i believe you are sincere in your work to improve the program. i think the language would go further than i would be willing to agree as we work to reform the program and make it better. guest: mr. chairman, i will be brief. this strikes right at the heart of the entitlement issue. there is something in between doing no policy reform. i understand