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 that.

i am interested in protecting vulnerable people, very much aware we are going to need some policy reforms to do that. there is something in between that and $400 billion which, in my view, is going to put at risk so many older people. i am sure all of you, i have seen a number of you talk about demographics in the days ahead. not only are we going to see baby boomers turning 65, but a rapid increase in the number of people who live beyond 80 based on son of -- some of the studies i see. that is a prescription to meeting medicaid long-term. in a lot of instances, because they live so long, they will essentially exhaust private resources. senator sessions talks about new policies. one of the things i have been interested in our fresh approaches to encourage private savings for long-term care. again, that is going to take

some time. we have some people who i believe are going to suffer under this approach. thank you. senator: there is still a minute left in the opposition. i just want to make a couple of comments. i am not sure -- i have to base it on my past experience. i used to be the chairman of health education labor and pensions. we were able to eliminate some programs, streamline some programs, combine some programs, and make a difference of the affected child care programs were able to continue and have more money. i am not sure under the wording in this that that would be a possibility in medicaid. we have to be able to scrutinize these things. the authorizing committees are the ones that scrutinize them. we ought to allow them the flexibility. my experience with any program

is that, if you reduce the level of request, you are considered to have cut their budget. there would have to be more definition on what was involved in that. next amendment is senator crapo. senator: thank you, mr. chairman. this is the crapo amendment number three two and operation chokepoint. this report serviced regarding an initiative that targets certain industries abilities to access banking services without showing the companies or industries are breaking the law. rather than targeting bad actors for illegal activity, operation chokepoint is causing banks to deny or terminate credit lines due to fear of doj subpoenas or regulatory action by regulators. legitimate industries, legal but

not acceptable to the administration are now facing the threat of the doj oversight and unjustified regulatory pressure. one of the supporters of this amendment, the chamber of commerce, has stated enforcement agencies have the tools to root out fraud directly. and of the chamber supports their efforts to do so. under operation choke point government officials punish entire categories of local businesses by instilling fear in the institutions that bank them. this has left banks with little choice but to terminate relationships with customers because of explicit or implicit threats from regulators or the department of justice. who are these industries? we found out that one of them is the firearms and ammunition industry in the united states. in idaho we have heard from several business owners involved in the gun and ammunition

businesses who experienced difficulty finding essential banking services as a result of this operation. at the urging of members of congress, the financial regulators updated their guidance and frankly and that the list of on exceptional -- unacceptable businesses in the united states and have continued operation chokepoint. getting them to withdraw their list was a good first step. but we must eliminate this inappropriate program. that is why i am offering this amendment to establish a fund to end operation chokepoint and protect the second amendment. this amendment is supported by the national rifle association gun owners of america, and not just industries related to the second amendment. it is supported by the american bankers association, the credit union association independent

community bankers of america the association of federal credit unions, and the chamber of commerce. the department of justice must not politicize it to worsen policies. we must not let operation chokepoint continue. chairman: -- senator: the description we have just heard. it is unrecognizable to the program as it exists. what is this program about? that electronic transactions are occurring that pull money out of citizens' bank accounts without their permission to. these remote transactions have been used in a predatory fashion across america. for example, in north carolina, there was a bank that suffered an assault in which $2.4 billion was taken out of their customers' accounts without permission. or a case in california, where a large sum was taken out for

services customers did not order. these types of remote electronic transactions have been a problem of theft of auditory theft from ordinary citizens. the department of justice put to work a working group to say this must stop. now, there has been the allegation as we have heard that legitimate businesses have been targeted. quite frankly, the evidence of that is extraordinarily scarce. but i have offered a friendly amendment to modify this particular provision to say, do not end the program, but modify it so jim and track -- transactions are not affected. so that means it would continue to target predatory activities stealing money from american citizens while making sure legitimate activities are not

touched. i offer that amendment. senator: senator merkley and i have been discussing and unfortunately, i am not in a position to accept the amendment because it allows the operation to continue. let me be clear. nothing in this amendment will stop the legitimate functions of the department of justice or our financial regulators from dealing with fraud. i would like to quickly read from the american bankers association letter. this letter was signed by the credit unions, independent community bankers, and the american bankers association. the amendment would in no way inhibit the enforcement of anti-fraud laws. all the requirements of the bank secrecy act and other statutes would continue in force and effect. just as they did before the operation -- creation of operation chokepoint. they go on to point out how

banks and credit unions work closely with doj and financial regulators to deal with the exact issues the senator is raising. my point is simply this: there is no reason for us to continue to allow this kind of an operation which targets legitimate businesses. that is what we are asking to stop. nothing will be changed in terms of the law, in terms of the authority of the department of justice or our financial regulators, to deal with fraud. senator: quite to the contrary, it is true that the statutes will remain in place. operation chokepoint was an effort to create a unit to enforce statutes. if you get rid of the unit that enforces statutes, you end up with a situation where you have laws in the book that are not protecting citizens from remote electronic transaction stealing money. i have offered a friend the

amendment that says modify the program to make sure it does not target legitimate activities by legitimate interests. to end the program would hurt americans across the country. chairman: next amendment by senator whitehouse. senator whitehouse: we have a responsibility to meet the emergency management needs of the country. we find in recent years, what has actually been put into the budget has been running around to $6 billion. what we actually spend has been $53 billion, $8.80, $13 billion. $17 billion in 2013.

there is a recurring gap between what we budget for and what we experience in our response. this amendment would create a deficit neutral reserve fund that would relate to fema's ability to prepare. in rhode island, we have seen fishery disasters, unprecedented storm activity from sandy. we have seen homes washed into the sea. 10 inches of sea level rise. and the carbon loading we are doing to our oceans continues. the continued weather wilding is going to continue. and experience would lead us to project that the expenditure is high.

it would allow the agency to respond to these disasters on land and on the ocean. we then have to fight for emergency funding because we have not adequately prepared ourselves for what is foreseeable. chairman: in opposition, i would mention that if you look at some of the details in the budget, something i complained about since i got to the senate is in their. what i complained about was, at that time, we were having about $4 billion a year in disasters. it was always an emergency. i said, if you have $4 billion a year, maybe you ought to plan ahead and put it in the budget. that has gone up to $7 billion a year on average for disasters. i put $7 billion a year in for each of the 10 years of the budget so we would be

acknowledging disasters. senator: we hope we can i -- agree on this. senator: chairman, remaining time? the director of the epa was before public works last week. i inquired of her what evidence we had that we have more storms. it is real clear that we have had fewer hurricanes -- substantially fewer -- in the last decade, contrary to global warming predictions. we have less tornadoes ipcc acknowledges that it is slightly greater. we are fortunate we have not had more hurricanes.

also, no more tornadoes. and fewer droughts. i asked questions to provide evidence to support her statements that we have had more of all of these. i look forward to her answers in the next week or two bank. chairman: senator johnson. senator: thank you, mr. chairman. you are probably as frustrated as i am obtaining information on programs. i'm hoping this amendment will follow in the same spirit of bipartisanship of trying to obtain information. we have now implemented obamacare. cbo projections have stopped reporting the cost of obamacare -- i'm sorry -- the affordable care act.

it is just a simple amendment that requires transparent recording -- reporting in the ongoing cost on the affordable care act. i'm hoping this will garner bipartisan support. chairman: opposition? senator: mr. chairman, i might ask if the sender would be willing to add costs and savings as an amendment. senator: absolutely. whatever the full measure, full information in terms of health care laws on our budget. i am happy to include that. chairman: is the senator willing to revise his amendment? senator: i will work with the senator to find out what language we need to include. chairman: further opposition?

senator: this is an amendment i have with senator ayotte. it may not solve every problem we are addressing. but it is a small step forward. this is some of the outgrowth of the task force where we pass legislation to eliminate duplicate reports. we got rid of 300 of them last year. we still have 4000 on a list that is reviewed on a regular basis. this would simply nudge the process along. senator ayotte may want to speak to this. this is our government report. senator ayotte: i want to support senator warner on this.

this has been important work we have done in the performance task force. i fully support the amendment. it makes sense, and i thank him for bringing it. senator warner: we have been able to document millions of savings from this. it all counts. chairman: i appreciate the effort and the time you have put in reviewing regulations. i know how fascinating they are to read. any opposition? next on our side would be senator ayotte. senator ayotte: i have a deficit neutral reserve fund to address. heroin and prescription opioid abuse. i do not know if you are experiencing this the same way we are experiencing it in new hampshire. it is an epidemic. we have had a 60% increase in drug deaths from heroin.

people who are addicted to prescription drugs are switching to heroin. we need to address this and look at this issue. make sure we are working with states to stop the public health epidemic. we need to work with law enforcement, but we cannot arrest our way out of this problem. chairman: opposition? senator: i would like to be added as a cosponsor. chairman: without objection. without objection. ok. back to your side again. senator king? senator king: i call it the ron johnson style amendment of

information. it is simply to require the cbo when they produce the budget, to produce a list of tax expenditures from 1965 to the present. and projected for the following 10 years. this is a slightly different format than senator whitehouse but it would simply require that information to be in the congressional budget office economic outlook they produce every year. very straightforward. senator: do you consider home mortgage deduction or a charitable contribution as a tax expenditure? senator king: any deductions. it is the whole package. the total amount would all have to be listed so we have that information. senator: i think that is one way to look at it. i do not think most people do.

senator king: this is not proposing they would be eliminated or changed. just to have the information before us. senator: may i be added as a cosponsor? the difference is that mine puts the information into this year's budget document and requires the cbo to do it on a more required basis. i asked to be added as a cosponsor. chairman: on our side, senator sessions would be next. senator sessions: hundreds of billions of dollars in medicare savings to the hospital insurance trust fund were double counted under the affordable care act, at least $400 billion

in the fiscal year between 20102019 -- 2010, 2019. in practice, the financing cannot be used simultaneously to finance other federal outlays such as covers -- coverage expansions under the affordable care act and to extend the trust fund despite the appearance this was all from respective can -- accounting conventions. cbo said that savings to the trust fund under obamacare would be received by the government only once. so they cannot be used to pay for future medicare spending. and at the same time pay for current spending on other parts of legislation or on other programs. they describe the full amount of

trust fund savings as improving the government's ability to pay future medicare benefits and finance new spending outside medicare. it would essentially double count a large share of those savings and overstate improvement in the fiscal position. this is a huge thing. the double count of $400 billion, as was done you past on legislation on december 23, whenever it was. that is the point in question. we need transparency. we need to understand this. this is not right, to cut medicare expense or benefits and claim, on programs that are heading to financial disaster, claim you saved money that can be spent on another account.

if money is saved in medicare or social security, it should be used to strengthen those programs effectively. i hope this amendment would allow more transparency about this issue. chairman: opposition? senator: we are going to have to study senator sessions' amendment. senator: just for the record when we were strengthening medicare with wellness visits and closing what we call the doughnut hole to allow more seniors to get low-cost prescription drugs and all the other things we did to strengthen medicare, we found in looking on the finance committee some areas where we could save dollars. one of those at the time was overpayments. medicare advantage has an

important role to play, but i remember asking the budget office if we cap the payment for advantage at hundred 50% -- 150%, would there be any savings? they said yes. there was such a huge overpayment going on. 85% of seniors going through traditional medicare. 15% through private insurance markets. and the amount of money going to private insurance market was hugely overpaid compared to everybody else. most seniors were picking up the cost. the point is we put some caps on overpayment that have saved dollars. and that have gone back into making sure more seniors can receive prescription drugs by closing the doughnut hole. by getting a wellness visit every year without getting out-of-pocket costs. and other things.

i guess i would start why we have to look at this amendment i would say to my friend from alabama that i come from a different perspective about what we actually did. i believe that we look for savings and strengthen medicare three benefits for seniors have gone up. senator sessions: those suggestions make sense. like when medicare costs were cut, the money should have been used to fix it, but it was not spent on doctors. your reform, some of those good work. senator: mr. chairman? chairman: senator wyden. senator wyden: because medicare is part of the overall federal budget, medicare savings in health reform extend the life of the hospital insurance trust

fund and reduce the federal budget deficit. an analogy i would make is this is similar to a baseball player hitting a home run. it adds to his team's core -- score and improves his average. neither situation would be double counting. to me, we ought to get on -- as i characterized it this morning -- bipartisan approaches that are going to protect the medicare guarantee and generate savings. but i am opposed to this amendment because, by the way, i would say not in a partisan way republican-controlled congresses did not object when cbo projected medicare savings to reduce the deficit under several

other approaches. the balanced budget act of 1997. the deficit reduction act of 2005. i hope we will reject this amendment and get on. senator staff now and others were there. with bipartisan approaches in the areas of tackling chronic disease. senator sessions: you cannot stand the same dollar twice. republicans did it in the past. we need to end it. chairman: ok. we said we would vote at 4:00. it is a few minutes past. we will go ahead and get started. the first amendment is senator king, with his sequester replacement.

we are beginning to vote. senator: would you mind if we took five minutes before beginning? chairman: as long as we only take five minutes. that is not normal for us, you know? ] senator: are we taking a break? mr. chairman, are we taking a break? i did not hear your conclusion? chairman: i was hoping not. but how many requests are there to take a break? none? ok. we will go ahead then. the first amendment is senator

king's. senator: mr. chairman, the amendment creates a deficit neutral reserve fund to be a place keeper for finding a solution to the sequester, which i think we agree is not good on the domestic or defense side. it says that it should be both defense and nondefense. and it allows spending cuts as well as revenue. chairman: opposition? senator: mr. chairman, senator king appropriately wants to and sequestration. but the way his amendment is written, it calls for an offset with changes in mandatory programs. as he indicated earlier, there are many ways you could do it.

but it leaves the possibility open for significant cuts in social security and medicare. and for that reason, i will oppose the amendment. senator king: my amendment should say "revenues." i would amend it to say "revenues." i think it is clear, but to clarify it further. chairman: my comments would have been similar to senator sanders, and that is scary. so are we ready to vote? senator king: my role is to bring people together. chairman: clerk will call the role. mr. grassley? mr. sessions? mr. crapo? mr. graham? mr. portman? mr. toomey?

ms. ayotte? mr. corker? mr. purdue? >> can i be recorded as aye? clerk: mr. wyden? ms. stabenow? mr. warner? mr. merkley? mr. kane? mr. king? mr. chairman? senator: how am i recorded? clerk: no. chairman: are there any who wish to change their vote?

clerk: the nays are 12. chairman: the amendment is defeated. next is senator sessions. senator sessions: i would like to modify more appropriately. after the words "benefit for aliens," i would like to insert "without legal status." i would ask my colleagues to support the amendment that would have a spending neutral reserve fund to prohibit illegal immigrants from qualifying for refundable tax credits. a position that the inspector general of the united states treasury has taken. and ask that the treasury department fix on its own but was unable to do so. they have asked congress to fix it. we are overdue in doing that. chairman: opposition? senator: mr. chairman, i want to

associate myself with our ranking member in terms of we definitely need immigration reform to address these things. i think it is important that we are not penalizing children here legally. it is important for the record to say anyone who is not here legally cannot receive today the earned income tax credit, social security, food stamps, what would traditionally be called welfare programs, housing vouchers. the affordable care act, medicare pell grant and disability. the implication is been that somehow people are receiving services that are not here legally. i would want to put that in the record. i hope will focus on comprehensive reform. senator sessions: some are fraudulently using social security. this would correct that. senator: there was a request

from the irs we be more specific. would you like a rollcall vote? chairman: please call the role. clerk: mr. grassley? mr. graham? mr. portman? mr. johnson? ms. ayotte? mr. wicker? mr. corker? mr. purdue? mr. sanders? ms. murphy? mr. wyden? mr. white house? mr. warner? ms. baldwin? mr. kane? restricting? -- mr. king? chairman: the amendment is adopted. next is the sanders amendment. senator sanders: senator toomey hit the nail on the head.

let's get rid of all limitations of billionaires can get -- contribute to candidates. who are those people going to be representing? will they represent the middle class and working families? you are going to be a paid employee for the billionaire class. i think enough is enough. we have to overturn citizens united. we need full disclosure when people put ads on television. i would ask for a yes vote. senator toomey: i would observe that the ranking member seems to give little credit to the intellect of the voters. if members of congress were the paid employees of billionaires, i rather think that would be noticeable to voters. they would be quite free to exercise their discretion in not electing someone who was an employee of billionaires. i do not why we have so little confidence in the electorate. chairman: would you like a rollcall vote? call the role. clerk: mr. grassley?

mr. sessions? mr. crapo? mr. graham? mr. portman? mr. toomey? ms. ayotte? mr. wicker? mr. purdue? mr. sanders? ms. murray? mr. wyden? mr. white house? mr. warner? mr. merkley? ms. baldwin? mr. king? mr. chairman? chairman: the amendment fails. next amendment, senator crapo. senator: i will yield to my cosponsor on this.

we should not be using the fees which should be going to supporting our housing industry as a piggy bank for other programs. civil rights groups align with his amendment and i urge its passage. chairman: all those in favor say i. opposed? next one is the murray amendment. senator: this is the amendment that takes the deficit neutral reserve fund in section 307 and allows it to expand for drastically needed issues for veterans and service members including providing additional job-training programs, specialty service is, and caregiver support. i think we all know that our veterans need that as well. it allows them to stay in their homes and work with va's infrastructure needs.

mental health care, fertility treatment for critically injured veterans who, because of injuries, can no longer have families. i think it is important that we expand this fund to make sure we address the real need of service members. chairman: i'm encouraged by the ability of both reserve funds to provide the body with the ability to address issues confronting our veterans. i would ask for a yes vote. any opposition? all those in favor? opposed? passes. next is the stabenow amendment. senator: you are still working out some issues and what asked to move to the end of the line on medicare.

i understand they are still working through some issues. if we do not do it here, we will do it on the floor. chairman: i understand you are striking a section as well. senator: we have points of order in this budget resolution on anything that would add to the deficit. ec that when it comes to the repeal of the affordable care act, there is not a point of order added to that. which is allowed under that. in fact, the affordable care act has reduced the deficit according to the cbo. it is very clear that repealing the affordable care act will actually increase the deficit. it is acknowledged in here by exempting a point of order on anything that increases the deficit as a result of the affordable care act. i think we need honesty in budgeting.

if this budget repeals the affordable care act and the services for 16.4 million men and women who are receiving health care for the first time 80 ever -- maybe ever, we know that repealing this will increase the deficit. we need to be honest about it. this would strike the exception and continue a point of order as we do for every other part of the budget. chairman: i think this will prohibit some inefficiencies. i would ask for a no vote. i assume a rollcall is required. clerk: mr. grassley? mr. sessions? mr. crapo? mr. graham? mr. portman? mr. graham?

mr. portman? mr. toomey? mr. johnson? ms. ayotte? mr. wicker? mr. corker? mr. purdue? mr. sanders? ms. murray? mr. wyden? mr. white house? mr. warner? mr. merkley? ms. baldwin? mr. kane? mr. king? mr. chairman? chairman: the amendment has failed. next is senator johnson's amendment. senator: 47 municipalities have declared bankruptcy. by estimates of underfunded liability is approaching $5 trillion. this amendment would prohibit the use of federal funds for bailing out state and local governments.

i think it sends a signal that the hard-working taxpayers from other states should not be asked to bail out those other municipalities. chairman: opposition? senator: i think that nobody is interested in bailing out anybody. i think this is overly prescriptive. we do not know what may happen to a town or city in wisconsin or vermont or anyplace else. i would urge a no vote. chairman: i suspect a rollcall is required. clerk: mr. grassley? mr. sessions? mr. crapo? mr. graham? mr. portman? mr. toomey? mr. johnson? ms. ayotte? mr. wicker? sister corker? mr. purdue? ms. murray? mr. wyden? mr. white house?

mr. warner? mr. merkley? ms. baldwin? mr. came? mr. king? mr. chairman? chairman: the amendment is approved. senator warner? senator warner: this is the effort that i believe even senator graham would support. it basically says let's urge the v.a. -- and i commend the work that so many have done to actually engage around the

country, to create law clinics to help law students process claims. that helps the law students, helps the veterans. the v.a. needs to be more engaged. i would urge a voice vote. chairman: opposition? all those in favor say i. the amendment is excepted. next is the ayotte amendment on energy. senator: i have an amendment that would address very important provisions on energy efficiency. on providing assistance to those who are low income, which is important with the winter we have had in new hampshire. and also federal support for the land and water conservation fund. this fund will allow you to look at energy efficiency and how we

deal with making sure we have a strong energy and protect our environment. chairman: opposition? all those in favor? opposed? that is passed. next is senator baldwin. senator baldwin: this amendment would restore a point of order illuminated against reconciliation legislation that would reduce the surplus. i want to yield to senator whitehouse. senator whitehouse: this might be the most important deficit fighting vote we will take today. i asked to be added as a cosponsor. chairman: without objection. this takes us back to 2008. i would ask for a no vote on this.

please call the committee. clerk: mr. grassley? mr. sessions? mr. crapo? mr. graham? mr. portman? mr. toomey? mr. johnson? ms. ayotte? mr. corker? mr. purdue? mr. sanders? ms. murray? mr. wyden? ms. stab and now? mr. merkley? mr. kane? mr. king? mr. chairman? chairman: no. the amendment has failed. next is senator portman. senator: this amendment would create a reserve fund for legislation that would reduce redundancy and improve access and enhance outcomes for

outreach programs. we talked about studies on this that show we have 47 programs over nine different departments and agencies. many of them have not been subject to performance review. 44 of 47 have been viewed as overlapping with one another. i would hope we get support on both sides and go to a voice vote. senator kaine and i join on this as we did with the educational fees to ensure that we have a trained workforce to close the current skills gap we have and get people back to work. chairman: opposition? all those in favor? those opposed? that is passed. next is senator merkley's career and tech education. senator merkley? senator merkley: this is the corollary to the career and

technical education, the stem program. deficit neutral fund. stem programs are an incredibly positive ingredient in schools across the nation to advance learning in science, technology, engineering's, and mathematics. i hope we can follow the model of having a voice vote as we did on the cte component earlier. chairman: it is my understanding you amended this? this has been amended? senator merkley: yes, but it covers both stamm and cte. thousand just by senator kaine's proposal. the words "career education" have been struck online two. chairman: any opposition? ready to vote? those in favor?

opposed? that is passed. if anybody wants a recorded no vote, they can have that. senator sessions asks to be recorded as no. nexis senator king's amendment. senator: this is a deficit reserve fund to help the dod with ongoing initiatives, to help aces do infrastructure and avoid the effects of climate change. this is important in my state because of sea level rise. important in other states because of drought. shortages and water supply. it is good for national defense and will potentially help our community avoid brack grounds. senator: it has been 10 years

since we had a category three hurricane hit the united states, perhaps the longest in the last 100 years. colorado university has said that tornadoes are down and hurricanes are down. to a significant degree. many of the predictions we have seen our alarmist. the results of climate change have not occurred. i do not think we should not be ratifying legislation based on damages that might occur from climate change until we see the damage. i would oppose the amendment because it sea levels rise, we will have to spend money. if it does not, we do not. senator: briefly, these are not perspective damages. they are current. the flooding is occurring. chairman: sensing the need for a recorded vote, pull the

committee. clerk: mr. grassley? mr. sessions? mr. crapo? mr. graham? mr. portman? mr. toomey? mr. johnson? ms. ayotte? mr. wicker? mr. corker? mr. purdue? mr. sanders? ms. murray? mr. wyden? mr. white house? mr. warner? mr. merkley? ms. baldwin? mr. kane? mr. king? mr. chairman? senator: how am i recorded? chairman: aye.

any others who wish to change their vote? clerk: yays 15 nays 7. chairman: that is passed. senator graham on defense. senator graham: this amendment pluses up the overseas contingency to mirror what the house has done. >> the argument i made before is that the world in 2015 is dramatically different for the worst. than it was in 2011. what senator murray said about sequestration is true. the fbi, cia, a lot of programs affected. none more than the military.

i asked leon panetta in 2007, if you pulled a sequestration trigger, would it be like shooting yourself in the foot, he said it would be like shooting yourself in the head. i have never seen more threats to our nations, or terrace, more capability, more weapons, more desire, to hit the homeland than i do now. this is a step to try to stop that. chairman: opposition? senator sanders: this country went to war in iraq and afghanistan under president bush but did not pay for that war. those wars will cost us between three join dollars and $6 trillion. my republican colleagues tell us that we need to cut medicare, education. the needs of the sick, because of a large deficit. what this amendment does is use budget gimmickry to add another

$38 billion to the deficit. if senator graham wants more money for the military, let's argue it out. but do not go through the process of budget gimmickry, add more money to the deficit without serious debate that we need. i fear very much the passage of this amendment lays the groundwork for another war to be unpaid for. i think that is a very very bad idea. chairman: sensing a need for the rollcall vote. [laughter] [applause] clerk: mr. grassley? mr. sessions? mr. crapo? mr. graham? mr. portman? mr. toomey? mr. johnson? ms. ayotte? mr. wicker? mr. corker? mr. purdue?

mr. sanders? ms. murray? mr. wyden? mr. white house? mr. warner? mr. merkley? ms. baldwin? mr. kane? mr. king? mr. chairman? chairman: the amendment has passed. next is mr. toomey's defense amendment. senator toomey: if you voted no on that amendment, you should be voting yes on mine. all mine does is attempt to safeguard in the event additional funding occurs and money is rent, it does not become part of the baseline. in the absence of my amendment there is an increased likelihood we have a $380 million increase that is not offset. my objective is not to prevent the increase in defense funding but to ensure it is offset with nondefense spending. but my amendment does is it --

any funds allocated for oco in 2017 above the original amount for 2016 would be subject to a point of order. it is a tool to diminish the risk that this becomes a permanent part of the baseline. chairman: opposition? senator sanders: i think this is clearly an amendment trying to undo the embarrassment of the past amendment where all of our deficit hawks spent another $30 billion. i would vote no. chairman: the clerk will poll the committee. clerk: mr. grassley? mr. sessions? mr. crapo? mr. graham? just a portland? mr. toomey? ms. ayotte? mr. wicker? mr. corker? mr. sanders? ms. murray? mr. white?

mr. white house? mr. warner? ms. baldwin? mr. came? mr. king? mr. chairman? chairman: the amendment is adopted. senator wyden? senator wyden: colleagues, chairman enzi, this is for the medicaid amendment? i talked at some length before. this is about the well-being of some of the most vulnerable people in american society. that is older people who depend on long-term care facilities. 60% of nursing home residents eventually get to medicaid. we have long had a talk about fresh approach and -- in long-term care policy.

i have been particularly interested in approaches for long-term care. given the number of seniors moving past 80 at this point there is a good bet that a lot of them are going to need medicaid assistance to cover long-term care. my hope is that this amendment will pass. i want to make it clear to colleagues that the ranking democrat on the finance committee, i am interested in approaches dealing with medicaid and medicare. but this particular feature of the budget, i hope will reject it. chairman: the senate budget approves medicaid and modernizes the program based on the chip model, which is successful in bipartisan. more importantly, the finance committee will be responsible

for writing legislation to improve medicaid. i know that the ranking member will have a major part in that. senator wyden: i want to say in rebuttal that i do not know how you get that level of medicaid savings without cutting medicaid long-term care service. i do not know how to do it. maybe other people have some way to proceed. chairman: i would ask for no votes we have books ability -- flexibility. time is expired. clerk: mr. grassley? mr. sessions? mr. crapo? mr. graham? mr. portman? mr. toomey? mr. johnson? ms. ayotte? mr. wicker? mr. corker? mr. purdue? mr. sanders? ms. murray?

mr. one? mr. murray? mr. king? mr. chairman? chairman: the amendment is defeated. senator crapo's amendment on chokepoint. senator: this is the amendment to terminate operation choke point, the department of justice effort to identify disfavored businesses in the united states and try to deprive them of access to financing in our system. one of those industries has been identified as the second amendment industry, the firearms industry. there are others. once they got caught with this, they said we will eliminate our list of bad actors. they say do not make us stop doing this operation. they always could stop, and they

can stop fraud in the future. we do not need to allow the operation to continue. chairman: opposition? senator: there areone is going against payday lenders breaking state laws and violating the contract. the second is a situation in california where free credit cards were given out to secure bank numbers and it was stolen out of accounts. >> i remind everybody what the banks said. they said the amendment would in no way inhibit the enforcement of anti-fraud.

>> i would offer a counter. the effort to go against predators would continue. that is what should be done. >> the clerk will pull the committee. -- poll the committee. >> could i be added as co-sponsor to the amendment? mr. enzi: without objection. the clerk will poll the committee. the clerk: mr. grassley.

mr. sessions. mr. crapo. mr. graham. mr. portman. mr. toomey. mr. johnson. ms. ayotte. mr. wicker. mr. corker. mr. perdue. mr. sanders. ms. murray. mr. wyden. ms. stabenow. mr. whitehouse. mr. warner. mr. merkley. ms. baldwin. mr. kaine. mr. king. mr. chairman. mr. chairman, the yeas are 13, the nays are nine. mr. enzi: the amendment has been passed. next is senator whitehouse on disaster funding. mr. whitehouse: this is the climate change related deficit neutral reserve fund rather like senator kain's we voted on. instead of related to military bases this is related to fema disaster money and i've already described it so i won't burden everybody's time further. i hope that this can get strong support. >> mr. chairman, his amendment says may include problems or disasters caused by human induced climate change. mr. sessions: but doesn't limit it to that, so i won't object we can do it by voice vote, i would just note again that according to expert testimony, environment and public works committee, droughts are not up. floods are not up. hurricanes are down substantially. tornadoes are down. and so we're looking forward to more evidence that will come out

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

amendment in conjunction with senator ayotte. mr. warner: i ask for a voice vote. ms. ayotte: sounds great. mr. enzi: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. that's passed. next, the ayotte amendment on abuse. drug abuse. ms. ayotte: i just wanted to this is a deficit neutral reserve fund to address haren. i would like to ask senator baldwin on as a co-sponsor and senator johnson as well and also senator toomey and also senator warner and anyone else who would like to be added on including senator kaine and senator king. senator merkley, senator sessions. i'm going to safely ask for a voice vote. >> could we get a recorded vote on this one? mr. enzi: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. that's passed. senator king. mr. king: this is an amendment which requires the congressional budget tufse publish historic data in a projection of 110 years for tax expenditures. senator portman and senator warner are co-sponsor, i hope we doon this by voice vote. mr. enzi: opposition? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. that's passed. senator sessions. no medicare double counting. mr. sessions: yes. the c.b.o. has said that though the conventions of accounting

may suggest otherwise, taking money by cutting social security and medicare expenses and spending that on a different program cannot be counted twice and that's what we did in the ppaca passage. it's been done before on other circumstances, this is up with of the reasons we get into the long-term unfunded liability situation that we're in today. if you'd reich to know exactly how it happened, we've got -- if you'd like to know exactly how it happened, we got more money for medicare when we cut medicare expenses, medicare loaned the government to the united states treasury they didn't give it to them. the government borrowed it. mr. enzi: opposition? senator wyden. mr. wyden: medicare savings and health reform both extend the life of the hospital insurance trust fund and reduce the federal budget deficit. the analogy i'd make is looking town this long table, we have a room full of athletes.

and this is no different than hitting a basket, scoring a goal, or a touchdown.

you add to your team's score, and you also improve your personal average. batting average, basketball percentage. what have you. neither situation involves double counting. and i mentioned earlier this has been done by both sides of the aisle and i think we should reject this amendment. mr. enzi: all time has expired. i sense we need -- do we want a roll call vote? ok. poll the committee. the clerk: mr. grassley. mr. sessions. mr. crapo. mr. graham. mr. portman. mr. toomey. mr. johnson. ms. ayotte. mr. wicker. mr. corker. mr. perdue. mr. sanders. ms. murray. mr. wyden. ms. stabenow. mr. whitehouse. mr. warner.

mr. merkley. ms. baldwin. mr. kaine. mr. king. mr. chairman. mr. chairman, the yeas are 10, the nays are 12. mr. enzi: could you repeat that? the clerk: the yeas are 10, the nays are 12. mr. enzi: it's been defeated. we have one more, the stabenow amendment, but it's been ruled that it could be corrosive to privilege of the resolution so i'll have to rule it out of order. for the information of all of my colleagues, i plan to entertain one more round of amendments, i understand that my democrat colleagues have about 10 and we have one left. so it isn't necessary for everybody to offer all those unless they really feel a burning desire.

after those are offered and debated we'll hold a final series of static votes and then move to report the resolution as amended. 10 on the democratic side and one on our side. >> we have been working going back and forth on this question of an amendment to make sure we're protecting medicare from cuts. ms. stabenow: which is very important to do. we are going to keep working and see, i'm not sure what the resistance is to actually going on record to make sure we're protecting medicare but we're going to keep working and work with the parliamentarian and if we aren't able to do this here we certainly will offer it on the floor. mr. enzi: certainly. we may as well start with your side. mr. sanders: i have not had much luck on bipartisan support so i'm going to try again. and i hope maybe, you know, do better on this one. mr. chairman, this amendment would create a deficit neutral reserve fund to fully audit the department of defense and the

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

overruns above original contractor estimates. what i think everybody in this room knows is our military straight system, weapons system, after weapons system, there are huge cost overruns. further mor, there have been a lot of fraud associated with the defense contracting industry. her i frankly, virtually every major defense contractor in this country has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in fines and related settlements for fraud and misconduct over the past 20 years. so where we are right now is we have the largest agency of the federal government, the d.o.d. some $600 billion, huge cost overruns, unable to audit this

very complicated agency. i think it's time for an audit and i would ask bipartisan support for this amendment. mr. enzi: there are audits that are being done. this amendment is in line with the initiatives laid out by the bipartisan views and estimates letter from the senate armed services committee. so all agencies, including one the size of d.o.d. need to be committed to greater efficiency and reform. one of the things i did getting ready for the budget is to get a copy of one of the latee versions of how federal budgeting is supposed to happen and i think we have some things to clean up in our own yard as well. but i haven't seen the kind of financial statements that the government says that they're putting out. so we've got a lot of room to make some improvements in this area. senator ayotte. ms. ayotte: i'd like to be added as a co-sponsor, i've sponsored legislation to do this in the last telecongresses. soy commend the senator for -- so i commend the senator for have this. mr. grassley: we've held

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

i applaud the increase in the budget request for $5.8 billion but it's $200 million less than last year's budget request and still $43 million below what congress appropriated in f.y. 2015 omnibus. funding will be cut at nine of the 16 nuclear waste cleanup sites. i have been crystal clear with my expectation that the federal government meet its milestones at knew cheer waste sites in our country. and the administration under both democratic and republican control has failed to meet that threshold. this is of great importance to me as well as other senators who sit on this committee who also have nuclear waste cleanup sites in their backyard. i'm fighting for this funding so our cleanup sites get the critical work done and i urge the adoption of this amendment. mr. enzi: opposition? who has the next amendment. ms. murray: i have one more, do you want me to offer it? my second amendment, we have been talking about sequester a lot.

this budget process remain there's a very large gulf between our two parties when it comes to economic and fiscal priorities but i think it is fair to say to one area of broad bipartisan agreement is that the across the board cuts that impact defense and nondefense investments are bad policies have got to be fixed. members of your party have said it, members of my party have said it. it should be something we come together to address. i've offered one way to do that, building on the zhofse bipartisan budget act chairman ryan and i worked out two years ago. i'm offering another one that will allow taos raise the caps for this coming fiscal year equally for defense and nondefense in a way that both sides should find acceptable at the short-term -- as a short-term fix. mr. chairman, all we have to do is update your budget to account for the most recent congressional budget office projections and use those

savings to increase the caps. that's all there is to this amendment. this budget is based on -- in front of us is based on outdated projections and the most recent projections include an additional $77 billion in revenue other the next 10 years that means that merely using the most updated revenue prosection -- projections gives us $77 billion of extra savings built into this budget which is more than enough to offset reasonable increases in the caps for defense and nondefense for this -- for fiscal year 2016. it would not raise taxes. these numbers are simply what the congressional budget office already expects the tax code to generate. doesn't increase the debt in your budget. wouldn't cause procedural problems for either budget year and most importantly this solves a very serious budget problem

that both parties want to resolve. so while i believe the best approach is -- over the long-term is by working together on responsible placement to those automatic cuts, i think we ought to take a stand and not lurch to another crisis this year and adopt this amendment and allow us to move forward to replace sequester if if -- for this year in rae responsible way. mr. enzi: unfortunately this increases taxes to allow more spending. i think that we immediate -- what we need to do, as soon as we get an approved budget, hopefully by april 15rks we can begin discussions on the budget control act itself which is a law not a resolution. all we're zoing a resolution here. ms. murray: this does not raise revenue it's based on c.b.o. projections. it doesn't raise any additional taxes whatsoever. >> mr. chairman, question for the patron. mr. chairman, may i have a question for the patron of the amendment? senator murray, i raise this question -- raised this question yesterday and i want to make sure that this is the point i was raising yesterday that the budget prepared for this mark was prepared using january c.b.o. figures but if instead

you use march c.b.o. figures you have both the revenue and expense projections have been updated. mr. kaine: and that enables you to cover this without increase in taxes. mr. murray -- ms. murray: that's correct. mr. kaine: so this is more accurate. ms. murray: that's correct. mr. enzi: you want to have greater expenditure for one year and spend it over 10. ms. murray: it replaces sequestration. we're racing to another government shutdown and a very bad crisis that impacts our economy and impacts defense and nondefense. this allows our appropriations committee to start moving forward in a responsible way for

this year. mr. sessions: but i see page two, it increases revenues, i have some hesitation on it. i know which budget baseline we wruse will be taken into consideration by the time we do conference at the -- mr. enzi: i know which budget baseline we use will be take intoon consideration by the time we do conference. mr. enzi: we'll start talking at about 2:00, we'll have our first vote around 5:00, we'll be on this monday. ms. murray: great. i ask for a vote.

>> i just wanted -- does this change the baseline? there's $77 billion -- ms. murray: c.b.o. made projections in january. they updated them in march. we take the c.b.o. projections from march, current law, and it allows us to have that flexibility for us to be able to allow our appropriations committee, if we adopt this, move forward and sequester is replaced for this fiscal year. does not change the deficit level. >> sounds good but -- mr. enzi: who has the next amendment? senator stabenow. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. chairman. moving away from health care, to talk about another subject actually, it does relate to health but it relates to cleanups when we have an oil spill. back in 2010, we had a terrible oil spill in michigan, the kalamazoo river. in fact the cost to clean it up was over $1 billion. and the oil was derived from tar sands. this tar sands is especially difficult to clean up. unfortunately, companies do not pay into the oil spill liability trust fund for oil derived from tar sands and so this amendment would subject oil derived from tar sands to the same oil spill liability fund and taxes as other types of oil. it would also permanently extent the -- extend the tax that expires in 2017 so oil companies would be paying for it rather

than taxpayers, homeowners, and so on. finally it would make sure oil companies, it would make sure that they could not deduct the cost of punitive damages when there is a judgment, a settlement against them resulting from an oil spill. right now taxpayers are subsidizing the costs of actually punishing a company that is acting intentionally or recklessly in causing an oil spill. so this would set up a deficit neutral reserve fund to equalize contributions to the oil spill liability trust fund from all oil sources, permanently extend the tax and eliminate the tax writeoffs right now that are applicable to settlements and judgments that are totally unfair from attacks payer's standpoint. -- from a taxpayer's standpoint. mr. enzi: opposition. >> mr. chairman could i add my

name as co-sponsor to that amendment? mr. enzi: senator merkley would be next. ms. stabenow: i believe senator merkley and senator baldwin are being to -- being -- are asking to be a added as co-sponsors. that's without objection, sure. >> i will say legitimate concern over the objection ability has been discussed. i am not able to support the amendment, but i think it's worthy of serious discussion. that part of your amendment. >> any other comments from the opposition? senator merkley, do you have an amendment? senator baldwin, do you have an amendment?

senator baldwin: i have two. i will try to get them under three minutes. the first one is the baldwin amendment regarding nih and biomedical research. i'm very concerned that budget cuts mandated by the budget control act and further cuts we have before us in the budget resolution continue to put biomedical research at risk. a concern i know many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle share. these policies are particularly devastating to our nations young researchers who are increasingly discouraged from entering the field altogether, and some are actually leaving the country to pursue their research. we are putting an entire

generation of scientists at risk. i am asking to help ensure the country remains on the forefront of innovation and also by supporting the next generation of innovative researchers. mr. chairman, my second amendment i would like to offer is regarding creation of a reserve fund dedicated to investing in american manufacturing. the amendment creates room to continue making investments in our manufacturing sector, whether they be in workforce training, research and development, or public-private earner ships. as many of my colleagues know, i come from a state where we are known for making things. and wisconsin we know that a strong manufacturing economy creates economic security for middle-class families.

the 60 support this powerful innovation. the national network for innovation or some future innovation like the one introduced yesterday on designating 25 universities as manufacturing universities to help schools strengthen engineering programs and meet the demands of the 21st century advanced manufacturing. i would urge the committee to support this amendment and yield back my 23 seconds. >> we could oppose these as being duplicates of what is already in the budget, but i won't. other amendments? any other amendments? last call for amendments?

that concludes amendments. we will start going through the amendments on voting. the first one would be the dod audit. i think there was no opposition to that one, so we will voice vote. all those in favor say aye. opposed? that passes. next is the murray amendment. on nuclear waste. >> nuclear waste cleanup emergency adoption. senator graham is a cosponsor. >> without objection. all those in favor, say aye. a? that passes.

yes. i'm checking where i am. >> i would ask consent that mr. merkley is in the amendment we just passed. >> i have two more we can do by voice. >> i wanted to add merkley is the cosponsor. i believe we got that. >> without objection. we have the baldwin amendment four in ih. any further discussion? all those in favor say aye. -- baldwin amendment for nih.

>> aye. >> that's passed. and then the amendment on american manufacturing. all those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> mr. chairman. >> yes. senator wyden: i have to be out of the room. i would like to ask unanimous consent to be recorded as voting in favor of it. is that acceptable? >> certainly. since it wouldn't change the outcome of the vote, that would be acceptable.

since we weren't able to give advanced warning on what time the vote would be, i have a couple who are missing who are in another committee meeting who are hustling back over here now. i'd ask your indulgence. ms. murray: i would ask unanimous consent that when they get here they're allowed to vote if their vote doesn't change the outcome. mr. enzi: what if it does change the outcome? ms. murray: then it changes the outcome and we'd have to -- have we done all the voice votes, mr. chairman? mr. enzi: yes. we have two votes left and then final vote. ms. murray: so which amendments are left to vote on? mr. enzi: your sequester

replacement and the oil spill cleanup. ms. murray: and final passage? mr. enzi: and final passage, yes. >> for the record, i would object to the unanimous request consent. mr. enzi: which unanimous consent request? mr. sessions: the one that senator murray just offered. ms. murray: i'm assuming we have three votes left and we'll be done, correct? are you suggesting a time of 5:10 for us to vote on the final amendments? i think people are trying to figure out when they're going to be able to get flights. we're just asking for -- mr. enzi: i hope it doesn't take that long for them to get from that committee to here. ms. murray: can we get clarification from staff so that everybody's here? that would be very helpful. mr. enzi: one's here.

[inaudible] >> mr. chairman, while we're

waiting, can i ask unanimous consent to be added as a co-sponsor to senator murray's amendment, number 45, on the nuclear waste cleanup? mr. enzi: without objection. >> mr. chair, while we're waiting, could i be added as a patron to senator murray's budget cap amendment? co-sponsor. mr. enzi: without objection. my next question is going to be what your donation was going to be. [laughter] i'm sure she has several levels that you could be a participant.

let me ask if it's ok, we're missing one person on each side. when they get here, they should be allowed to record their vote, unless there's an objection. who are we missing? oh, senator corker. the capitol contingent i think is getting here.

senator whitehouse and senator corker were in the same meeting. we should be a few minutes out of voting. ok. i'll call on senator murray then for her 30 seconds on the sequester. ms. murray: i'll take less than that. this is a budget sequester amendment that takes the current c.b.o. projection to allow us to be able to replace sequestration for this year. it's responsible and it gets us back to a very dangerous point where we could pay some serious consequences without this amendment. mr. enzi: i thought it was an increase in taxes and spending and page two it does say

increasing federal revenues. so, we will be taking advantage of the baseline changes that are -- by the time that we get to conference, that would be the normal time for doing that. since we just got them. we'll use -- i'd ask that you vote no. call on the clerk. mr. grassley: no. mr. sessions: no. mr. crapo: no. mr. graham: no. mr. portman: no. mr. toomey: no. mr. johnson: no. ms. ayotte: no. mr. wicker: no. mr. corker: no. mr. perdue: no. mr. sanders: yes. ms. murray: aye. mr. wyden: aye. ms. stabenow: aye. mr. whitehouse: aye.

mr. warner: aye. mr. merkley: -- ms. baldwin: aye. mr. kaine: aye. mr. king: aye. mr. enzi: no. the clerk: the ayes are 10, the nays are 12. mr. enzi: the next is the stabenow amendment on oil spills. ms. stabenow: this is really a taxpayer amendment to say, if you have an oil spill, some tar sands, that the oil companies should be paying for that. the cleanup. the oil spill liability trust fund should have those types of spills covered by companies paying into it. we permanently extend the tax and eliminate tax benefits that apply when there's a settlement or a judgment because of oil spills and there's punitive damages. if somebody is found to be reckless, the taxpayer should not pick up the tab.

i would ask for a yes vote. mr. enzi: i would ask for a no vote. this is overly prescriptive and it's an issue that needs to be deliberated at length in the finance committee and i know that senator wyden has been here to hear the discussion on it and so i'm sure that it will be. i don't think it's the intent of anybody to give people a special tax break on fines or penalties. so i'd recommend a no vote. poll the committee. mr. grassley: no. mr. sessions: no. mr. crapo: no. mr. graham: no. mr. portman: no. mr. toomey: no. mr. johnson: no. ms. ayotte: aye. mr. wicker: no. mr. corker: no. mr. perdue: no. mr. sanders: aye. ms. murray: aye. mr. wyden: aye. ms. stabenow: aye. mr. whitehouse: aye. mr. warner: aye. mr. merkley: -- ms. baldwin: aye. mr. kaine: aye.

mr. king: aye. mr. enzi: no. the clerk: mr. chairman, the yeas are 11, the nays are 11. mr. enzi: dies on a tie. we're now to that final part. i move that the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2016 be reported favorably. i'll call on the clerk to poll the committee. mr. grassley: aye. mr. sessions: aye. mr. crapo: aye. mr. graham: aye. mr. portman: aye. mr. toomey: aye. mr. johnson: aye. ms. ayotte: aye. mr. wicker: aye. mr. perdue: aye. mr. sanders: no. ms. murray: no. mr. wyden: no. ms. stabenow: no. mr. whitehouse: no. mr. warner: no. mr. merkley: no. ms. baldwin: no. mr. kaine: no. mr. king: no. mr. enzi: aye. the clerk: mr. chairman, the

ayes are 12, the nays are 10. mr. enzi: the resolution passes. and i'd like to thank all the members for their tremendous cooperation getting this done. it is important that if you have any necessary documents to be filed, it has to be done tomorrow. in order that the resolution can be brought to the senate floor next week. the deadline for submitting additional or minority views is no later than noon tomorrow. any views must have a member signature. and we'll begin debate at 2:00 on monday. oh, yeah. staff can make technical and conforming changes. one can add the numbers for the facts and figures. complete the charts.

>> gavel it out, sir. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] \[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> the committee -- the committee completed its work.

the legislation is scheduled to move to the senate floor monday afternoon. today marks the 36th 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. he spent was created why the cable tv industry. what you buy a public service by local satellite provider. coming up next, tony lincoln testifying -- tony blinken testifying. after that, chris van hollen discussing the gop proposal. >> on the next washington

journal, what could happen if interest rates rise. after that, ron kessler talks about his book. current reform proposals for the secret service. we will be taking your phone calls and tweets. all of washington journal. live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. the republican national lawyers association is holding a daylong policy conference in washington dc. featured speakers include bob corker, representative susan brooks. former maryland governor, bob ehrlich. you can watch it on c-span two -- c-span2. >> now isis rears its ugly head. this army is shaky. we should not be surprised. you cannot undo decades of soviet era with eight years.

especially when you talk them when you're going to have u.s. advises partner with them. afghanistan -- we currently have 10,000 troops there. we are drawing down to 5000 year. almost down to zero the year after that. we'll see a similar result as we saw in a rack with the isis attack. the army is going to be shaky. >> this sunday on join a on the u.s. fail on the failed u.s. -- what we should have done different. on c-span's q&a. >> this weekend media, to learn about columnist george. >> inside this museum, is the remains of a confederate

ironclad. this ironclad was built and columbus. the shapes that you see are the gun ports. jackson is armed with six rifles. the particular rifle will be fine today -- the particular rifle we will be firing today -- completed in january 1855. the real claim to fame is directly connected to the fact there only four for -- there only four ironclads from the civil war. jackson's is right here. it is first and foremost -- it first and foremost tells the story of this ironclad. there were many. >> watch all of our events from columbus, saturday.

sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv. >> deputy secretary state anthony blinken testified about the ongoing iran program. treasury undersecretary and financial intelligence. the hearing is over two hours. mr. royce: this hearing will come to order. the committee here today will continue to invite weight the administrations nuclear diplomacy with iran. the subject of the hearing today.

negotiators face a high-stakes deadline next week. we'll hear the administration's case today. it is critical that the administration here's our bipartisan concerns here. debbie secretary lincoln this is your first -- deputy secretary blinken this is your first time before us. i trust you'll be in touch with secretary kerry. to report on the committee's views. i think this is important. this committee has been at the forefront of examining the threat of a nuclear iran. much of the pressure that has been brought on the islamic republic of iran -- and brought them to the table -- was put in place by congress. it was put in place over the objections of the executive rights. that is the executive branch

whether it was republican or democratic. it is the house of representatives that has driven this process, and we would have more pressure on iran today if the administration had not pressured the senate. to set on the sanctions bill that this committee produced in 2013. it passed unanimously. it passed 400 to 20. congress is proud of this role. we want to see the administration and a lasting agreement. unfortunately, the administrations negotiating strategy has been more about managing proliferation than preventing. the case in point, is iran's uranium and -- uranium enrichment program. reportedly, the initiation would be agreeable to leaving much of iran's enrichment capability in place for a decade.

congress will be asked to roll back sanctions on iran which will certainly fund iran's terrorist activities when we roll back. there must be a substantial rollback of iran's nuclear program. consider that international inspectors report that iran has not revealed its past bomb work. the iaea is still concerned about iran's military related activities. including designing a nuclear payload. iran has began -- has begun to address these concerns. members wrote to the secretary state, expressing deep concerns about the lack of cooperation from iran. how can we expect to iran -- i can we expect iran to uphold an agreement when they are not --

or that tehran was caught testing a more sit -- more centrifuge? right in the middle of this process. this was a violation of the spirit -- and the letter -- of the interim agreement. all the more reason the initiation should obtain zero notice anywhere -- anytime -- inspections on iran's facilities. we have to have a verification regime that is going to work for us. there's also the fact that limits placed on iran's nuclear program are going to expire.

that means the final agreement is another interim's debt. -- an interim step. being treated as a that's being treated as another nonnuclear state. with a deep history of deception , covert procurement, and clandestine facilities, iran is not any other country. it is certainly not any other country back -- another country to be conceded. any meaningful agreement must meet restrictions in place for decades. as over a six to members of congress including -- as over 360 members of congress, including -- meanwhile iran is intensifying its destructive

role in the region. the islamic republican of iran while it's proxy hezbollah threatens israel. the militia is killing hopes of the united iraqi. last month,, -- a key counterterrorist partner to the united states. iran, ramping up pressure in the region. as result of the currency they will have at their disposal. this committee is prepared to evite wait any agreement to determine if it is the long-term national security interest of the united states. secretary kerry testified any agreement will have to pass muster with congress.

yet that commitment has been muddied by the administrations insistence that congress will not play a role. that is not right. congress built the sanction structure that brought iran to the table. if the president moves to dismantle it, we will have a say. i now turn to a leed gold of new york for his remarks. mr. gold: thank you for calling this hearing. mr. undersecretary, welcome to the committee. we are grateful for your service. i want to congratulate both of you. the chairman's remarks are similar to mine. we have worked hard on this committee to have bipartisanship. because both the chairman and i agree that if there is one place

we need bipartisanship than any other place, it involves foreign policy. whenever possible we try to talk with one voice. i want to associate myself with the chairman's remarks. we have seen a lot of speculative reporting in the press about what might or might not be included in the deal with iran. today, we are going to send over a letter to the president, signed by 306 members of congress from both parties -- 300 60 members -- the edges 60 members of congress from both parties. hoping we get a prompt response from the white house. it is a very bipartisan letter expressing strong feelings about things that need to be in the agreement. i want to emphasize --

reemphasize what the chairman said. there cannot be any marginalization. congress is to play a very active role in this process. any attempts to sidestep congress will be resisted on both sides of the aisle. we have seen a lot of speculative reporting about what might or might not be included. we do not know if there is going to be a deal. if there is, i think we would be wise to review the details before passing judgment. whether it is a good deal or bad deal or simply a deal we can live with. it is safe to assume we're not going to see a perfect deal. should've been required to freeze enrichment your negotiations. a freeze is now the table for a conference of agreement.

[no audio] [please stand by] iran's leaders do not deserve trust. we need very strong safeguards. lastly, how will we be certain that senses are really.

-- will be certain that are a relief. here is the bottom line, if we say yes will it be worth unraveling the decades of pressure that the united states have built against iran. if we say no, will we be able to hold the sanctions coalition together echo if we maintain or increase our sanctions well iran move full speed ahead toward a bomb? intense pressure to do something. we cannot allow that to push us into a bad deal. the administration is arguing that reaching a deal is a best chance to solving a crisis. as i have repeatedly said, i

strongly urge the colleagues to do the same. make no mistake congress will play an important role in the evaluation of the final deal. i will not stand by and allow congress to be marginalized. any permanent repeal should be at congresses discretion. -- should be a congress's discretion. i look forward to your testimony and hope we can have a discussion on these issues. mr. chairman, thank you for calling this hearing. chairman: we are pleased to be joined by tony blinken. mr. blinken also worked for the

foreign relations committee. we welcome him for his first appearance before this committee. mr. adam szubin is the acting undersecretary for the office of terrorism for the department of treasury. he previously served as the director of treasury's office for foreign assets control. we welcome him back. without objection, the witnesses statement will be made a part of the record. we'll have five calendar days to submit statements to you a question. or any extraneous materials to you for the record. mr. secretary, if you would begin. mr. blinken: i want to thank you. to give us this opportunity to discuss a hot -- a comprehensive solution. as you mentioned, secretary of

state karen -- secretary of state ckerry are in switzerland. the goal of these negotiations are to verify and ensure that iran's negotiations are for peace. mirror to uranium pathways -- there are two uranium pathways. a plutonium pathway. and a potential covert pathway. any comprehensive arrangement must include constraints on the nuclear program. transparency measures that maximize the community's attempt to break out overtly or covertly. we are working to ensure iran would take at least one year to produce