hear from kathy castor who has been a great advocate on all of these issues for working families. and this republican budget disinvests in america's future -- in our kids, in our innovation, in modernizing our infrastructure. without further ado, cathy caster. rep. cathy caster: thank you chris. i want to thank ranking member van hollen for his advocacy on behalf of all american families and businesses. the economy's getting better but this republican budget puts the economic recovery at risk. look at what's happened just over the past few years with democratic leadership in the white house. unemployment is low. it's down about 5.5%. you've got low gas prices that we know is going to put over $700 in the pockets of american families on average. and if you're lucky enough to be in the stock market, you're doing very well. people's retirement accounts

are healthier. but the republican budget puts all of that at risk because it is a dark vision for the future that says to everyone across america that you're going to have to work harder for less. and here are a few examples because we, even though unemployment is lower, we've got to do better with paychecks, with take-home pay and higher wages. here are a few examples. when you think about how do we boost wages across america. i had an amendment last night to make sure that america keeps its number one position globally in medical research. it was an amendment that said it's time to answer the call of dr. francis collins at nih. the journal of american -- the american medical association said congress, unless you act soon, asia -- the asian countries are going to eat our lunch. they're going to become the world leaders in medical research.

the republicans rejected additional investments in medical research. we anticipate that that is going to cost us 1300 grants to our young talented scientists and it is going to put families more at risk at a time when we've got to keep working for the cures for cancer, heart disease, alzheimer's and those kind of conditions. here's another example. we're facing another cliff when it comes to transportation and infrastructure. at the end of may, we are going to run out of money andin the highway trust fund. although we hear lip service from our republican colleagues oh, we're for transportation and infrastructure, the republican budget has no plan whatsoever. we predict it will result in about a $190 billion cut over future years in how we invest in transportation and infrastructure. in my home state of florida, those are higher wage jobs. the engineers, the folks who build our roads and airports and seaports.

the republicans will put us at greater risk for our economic future. another example, finally, is what they do to education. all across the country right now, there are high school students waiting to hear where they are accepted to college. that's going to come out over the next few weeks. but at the same time, the republicans are offering a budget that is going to dash the hopes of students across this country because they cut the pell grant so drastically, cut the american opportunity tax credit, make it harder to get a student loan. so that's a recipe for a bleaker future. it's going to put the economic recovery at risk. they are going to ask people to work harder for less. it's a sham and it really is a risk to america's economic future. rep. van hollen: thank you cathy.

and thank you for being there in the future all last night and into the morning. now we're going to hear from congresswoman michelle lujan grisham who was an expert on health care issues long before she came to the congress. she headed up the new mexico department of health. she's going to talk about the impact of this budget on health care from medicare to medicaid both of which take big hits in this budget. rep. grisham: thank you. thank you, chris. i always have to start with lowering all the microphones or i got to find a way to raise my stature before the podium. good afternoon. i really appreciate that you're here because what you're hearing from us and you'll hear in a moment from other experts that are serving middle class families and working on effective policies that do really two things. one with be make sure the protections for middle class

americans -- we're talking seniors and kids and hard working families and the disabled -- but also in addition to those protections, make sure that we're investing so, for example, those seniors with their retirement income continue to spend in this economy in a way that's good for all of us and continues to bolster economic growth. this budget doesn't do any of that. in fact, over and over again, last night and early this morning, i really appreciate congressman van holland's reiterating that we hear from our republican colleagues that this is meant to protect those very people, but if you're going to turn medicare into a voucher program for all future beneficiaries, if you're going to take the current medicare program, if you want to stay in that, you're going to pay more. if you're going to remove investments in medicare for additional services like preventative services, prescription drug protection by making sure that you have access to affordable prescription drugs, by removing the affordable care act investments in medicare, you aren't reshaping medicare, you are destroying medicare for current beneficiaries and for future beneficiaries. if you want to take a trillion

dollars out of medicaid which protects older people, disabled adults, long term care, enables them to stay part of their families and in that community if you're going to take away that health care safety net from poor and sick children, states like mine where we have the sickest population and the poorest population in the country, then you really aren't taking care of those folks. it's like saying that if you go out and get a sunburn, that we believe that actually reduces the risks of getting skin cancer. it makes absolutely no sense. i'm really concerned as we debate about taxes and we have to wait and see what that reform would look like to actually defend the budget that we have which again devastates medicaid, asks states to use much less money and to be more -- to do that in a block grant, if you will. all that means is the only opportunity states have is to actually take people off the medicaid rolls. and again, to completely decimate medicare. then we're basically telling

seniors and disabled adults and children that if they're duly eligible or they're on the medicare program, that they're not going to be taxed in order to stay in any one of those services which means we don't have a health care infrastructure for any american moving forward. i'm actually ashamed that this is a budget that proposes those changes to those critical programs. i thank you very much, thank you for being here and yield back. rep. van hollen: all right. well, thank you. thanks for your passion on these issues. in a moment, we're going to hear from each of three representatives from the more than 70 or 80 people who gathered just a short while ago to talk about the impact of this budget. as i turn it over i just want to stress one thing. the republicans claim that their number one objective is to somehow reduce the deficit and balance the budget. our priority is to make sure that we get an economy moving

and make sure people have good paying jobs. but the republican claim that they balance the budget, it just isn't so. not even close. if you followed the hearing the other day, you would realize that even republicans were looking pretty embarrassed about the fact that their budget would not pass muster with enron accounts. it wouldn't balance in the ten years without the affordable care act revenue in savings. at the same time they claim to be getting rid of the affordable care act. it wouldn't come close to balance if they included the more than $1 trillion in tax extenders, increased tax -- business tax cuts that they've tried to push for on the floor of the house. then on top of that, they claim a deficit reduction bonus based on phantom deficit reduction so in year ten it doesn't even come close, and anybody who tries to say that with a straight face deserves to have

a reality check. here's the other point. while they're willing to make these deep cuts in education in our infrastructure investments, in science research, while they're willing to hit seniors on medicare seniors and others on medicaid while they hit the food and nutrition programs by $125 billion, while they do all that, they don't close one special interest tax loophole. not one for the purpose of reducing the deficit. they don't get rid of the corporate jet tax break. they don't get of the ledge fund managers tax break. we, according to the cbo, spend more on tax breaks every year than on social security. the tax expenditures are higher every year $1.4 trillion a year compared to social security. that's more from tax expenditures, more than

medicare, more than other parts of the budget. andy et they cut all these other things, put everybody else at risk, but won't take away one tax break. so we're really pleased to have representatives from groups who have their priorities straight the priorities that the american public has. we're going to hear from deb weinstein from the center of human needs. we're going to hear from joel packer for the committee for education funding. and we'll hear from stacy sanders from the medicare rights center. let's start with deb weinstein and thank you for your passion and advocacy for hard working americans and people struggling to make ends meet. deborah weinstein: thank you so much. i really appreciate this opportunity and everything that congressman van holland and his colleagues here are standing for. you no he, at the coalition on human needs, we watched with great interest this past fall when there was a lot of talk

about concern about inequality concern about poverty, and it was voiced by republicans and democrats and we welcome that because there hadn't been a lot on the republican side, it seemed like. but i guess that was then. that was talk, and their budget is not exactly action. it is a blueprint for the kind of action that they would like to take, and than action would make inequality worse, would make poverty worse. let me give just one example that representative van holland mentioned. and this, this budget would allow the health to low income working families from the child

tax credit and the earned income tax credit, it would allow the improvements in that to expire. and what that would do is leave 16 million people, many of them children, either in poverty or more deeply in poverty. just that one failure. in addition, the block granting and drastic cutting of food stamps, or s.n.a.p., the drop granting and drastic cutting of medicaid, these are things that will hurt children, will hurt working families, and will drive people further into poverty. throughout the budget, cuts in education, cuts in housing and so many other aspects. child care. the kinds of tools that help

people work. those will be torn away at the same time that there will be these greater breaks for people at the top. inequality gets worse. poverty gets worse. if this budget were to be allowed to take effect. rep. van hollen: next, we're going to hear from joel packer from the committee for education funding to talk about the impact of the budget on education issues. joel packer: thank you. thanks for having me. my representative community for education funding is a national coalition of 116 education groups. the budget that the committee reported at today is really going to be devastating for students and children from preschool through higher education. it does that in three major ways. first, in the pot of mrn that's called non-defense discretionary, that's the pot of money that the appropriations committee allocates each year, it is where most education programs are funded along with many

other important programs, it starts up by freezing that pot of money at the sequester level for fiscal year 2016 leaving no room for any needed investments. then much worse, in the next nine years, it slashes those funds by $759 billion. it is an average cut of 14%. 14% cut in the department of education would be almost $7 billion, $8 billion that would really be harmful for extra reading help, services for are children with disability college work study. second, it devastates the pell grant program. pell grant program has funding both on the discretionary side and the mandatory side. this budget completely eliminates all mandatory funding for pell grants. $90 billion. that would wipe out funds that increase the maximum grant award. it would result in a cut in the maximum grant of $915, almost 16%. at a time when college costs are going up and students need

help to be able to afford college. third, it also really hits student loans. it eliminates the interest subsidy on student loans for undergraduate students who have financial need. that's another almost $40 billion. that's going to increase the cost of loans on average by about $3,800. again, just made college more -- less affordable and more expensive. it has other cuts in the student loan program eliminating something called public service loan forgiveness that helps people who want to go in jobs like teaching and law enforcement and public service law to help them be able to pay their loans and make college affordable. overall, whether it's kid in head start or people in higher education, this budget cuts them from every side and we hope that the congress rejects it as it moves forward. rep. van hollen: thank you joel. next right here from stacy sanders with the medicare rights center.

thank you. stacy sanders: thank you. great to be here today. i represent the medicare rights center. each year my organization works directly with over 1 1/2 million older adults, people with disabilities and family caregivers. people who rely on the medicare program for their basic health and economic security. this budget in the 50th anniversary year of medicare and medicaid really deeply cuts and undermines the promise of these programs. i think it is important to note that if this budget were enacted, it would have very significant and real world consequences for seniors and people with disabilities. this budget would introduce a voucher or premium support program in medicare, essentially ending the guaranteed medicare benefit as we know it. that would likely increase costs for a significant number of older adults and people with disabilities. this budget would cut the medicaid program by over $900 billion and introduce block grants which would inevitably

lead to higher costs and less care for very frail older adults and people with disabilities who are trying to stay in their homes and communities. finally, by repealing the affordable care act, this budget would take away health insurance for millions of americans who have been fet i haditted benefited from the marketplaces. my organization heard from 64 year-olds, 63 year-olds, people desperately hanging on until they could become eligible for medicare. because of the aca, we don't get those calls anymore. this budget would return us back to that time where we hear from people who simply have no health insurance. in addition, a repeal of the aca would increase prescription drug costs for older people and people with disabilities, as well as increase costs for very important preventative services and screenings that really we need to give people access to so they can stay longer in their homes and their communities where they would

like to be. thank you. rep. van hollen: so thank you all. we're happy to try and answer any questions that you have, if there are any questions. >> are the democrats going to stand united and -- rep. van hollen: i'm confident that the democrats will oppose this budget because it is so out of step with the values and priorities of the country. >> all of them? rep. van hollen: you can never say for sure. but i can tell you that last year it was 100%. rep. van hollen: right, what we saw last night and first time since i've been on the committee that the budget committee didn't wrap up its work during the regular mark-up. this is because of a disagreement among republicans.

what it shows is a lot of uncertainty about how we're going to provide funding for national security and national defense. they have a proposal that would do exactly what republicans on the budget committee have said that we should not do in years past. and democrats agree that we should not do. and that is use what's called the overseas contingency account, war savings account as a slush fund to pay for ongoing defense needs that are not related to overseas operations. and yet despite the fact that the committee's always taken a strong position on using the overseas fund as a slush fund, that's exactly what they've done in this budget, and in fact they ended up with the of both worlds. they used it as a slush fund but also did not provide the certainty of additional national security defense as the president does provide for it in his budget.

the president's very straightforward. puts forward an increase in our national security investment but also investing in the future of the economy and the education in infrastructure, scientific research and those kind of things. we'll have to see how that plays out on the floor of the house and whether they try to amend that in the rules committee. rep. van hollen: well, look, we're going to explore all our options to try to defeat a budget that is bad for america. it's bad in so many respects that it's hard to keep count of them all. we've gone over many of them today.

but fundamentally what this does is make it harder for working americans to get ahead. makes it easy for folks who have made it to claim another round of tax cuts. but for everybody else, it's a tough budget. so we will look at always to stop a budget that we think is out of step with american values. look, i mean we'll just look at all our options. we haven't -- we'll look at all our options going forward. rep. van hollen: well, we hope that's what we can do. right? i mean that's what the president's budget does in a very straightforward fashion.

the president's budget increases our investment in defense by around 37$37 million. it increases our investment in education and important investments in powering our economy by a similar amount. so the president has laid out a framework for moving us ahead and making the investments that we need. that would be the template for an agreement going forward. rep. van hollen: well, again republicans are right now themselves in total disarray as to what they want. i mean it is hard to negotiate with republicans when republicans are fighting with each other. >> were you at all surprised that night?

you looked surprised. rep. van hollen: there were a couple signs in the day, right? because we had to recess once earlier in the day because they had to go huddle on exactly the same issue that ended up stalling the mark-up. again, you've got this -- you've got to give credit to some of the republican members of the committee who wanted to stand for the principle that the committee on a biparts pennsylvania basis has stood for, which is you shouldn't play games with defense spending by trying to push domestic defense -- basic defense budget needs into the overseas contingency account. using it as a slush fund. we were just reading back to republicans on the committee. their own report language

saying that the committee should protect the integrity of the process and prevent us from playing those kind of budget games with defense spending. so it sends a really uncertain message to the country about where they are on defense spending. all right? thank you all very

address the senate as in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: mr. president i come to the >> mr. president i come to the floor today to address a very serious accusation leveled yesterday can members of this body by the democratic whip, the senator from illinois. and i do with some regret. the senator from illinois and i have been friends for many, many years. we served in the house together and here in this body, and have worked together, and that's why i was so surprised and disappointed in the comments that he made yesterday on the floor of the senate, comments that are totally inappropriate to be made on the floor of the senate. my colleague from illinois said -- and i quote -- "republican majority leader announced that he was going to hold this

nomination of loretta lynch until the bill which is pending before the senate passes, whenever that may be." then he went on to say "and so loretta lynch the first african-american woman nominated to be attorney general is asked to sit in the back of the bus when it comes to the senate calendar." that is unfair, it's unjust, it's beneath the decorum and dignity of the united states senate." what is beneath the decorum and dignity of the united states senate i would say to the the senator from illinois is for him to come to the floor and use that imagery and suggest that racist tactics are being employed to delay ms. lynch's confirmation vote. such inflammatory rhetoric has no place in this body and serves no purpose other than to further

divide us. perhaps my colleagues and the senator from illinois in particular need to be reminded of their own record when it comes to the treatment of african-american women whose nominations were before this body. in 2012 janice rogers brown an african-american, was nominated to serve on the u.s. court of appeals for the district of columbia a court that had never included an african-american woman judge. the senator from illinois voted to filibuster her nomination in 2003 and again in 2005 when she was finally confirmed after waiting 684 days, the senator from illinois voted against the historic nomination. i would never suggest even with veiled rhetoric that judge rogers brown's race was the reason for the senator from illinois' opposition to her nomination.

and he should extend, i say to my colleague from illinois, he should extend that same courtesy to me and my colleagues. i'd also like to remind the senator from illinois about how we were able to fill vacancies in the u.s. district court of arizona last year, effectively alleviating a judicial emergency with tremendous bipartisan support and the nomination of senator flake and myself, we confirmed a diverse and historic slate of six nominees which included an hispanic, an african-american and the first native american woman ever to serve on the federal bench. but their race had nothing to do with their successful confirmations, just as ms. lynch's race should have no impact on her consideration in this body. those six judges were approved by this body because each of them had shown a commitment to justice, public service and the people of arizona. each also had demonstrated the judicial temperament and

professional demeanor necessary to serve with integrity. i further point out to the senator from illinois that at no time as the majority leader ever indicated that he would not bring the lynch nomination to the floor. in fact the opposite is true. we made it very clear time and again that we will consider the lynch nomination once we have disposed of the bipartisan trafficking bill. had the senator from illinois and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle not filibustered this bill over a manufactured crisis we could have considered the lynch nomination this week. they chose otherwise. i deeply regret that the senator from illinois chose to come here yesterday and question the integrity and motivation mine and my republican colleagues. it was offensive and unnecessary, and i think he owes this body, ms. lynch and all americans an apology. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

assistant democratic leader. mr. durbin: mr. president i'm glad that i heard my colleague's comments firsthand and i'd like to respond to them directly. as of today, loretta lynch, who is the president's nominee for attorney general has been, had her nomination pending before the united states senate 131 days. how does that compare with previous nominees for attorney general? it is three times longer than the period of time that general -- attorney general ashcroft was pending before the united states senate. two and a half times longer than the time taken to confirm attorney general mukasey. twice as long as the time taken to confirm attorney general holder. why? in some cases these nominees had questions that were raised by members of the senate, questions about their political views

their background, legitimate questions that required time to answer. i sat in the hearing the senate judiciary committee hearing for this nominee, loretta lynch. there were no questions raised of any nature, of any kind questioning her ability to serve as attorney general. none when my colleague from arizona notes the fact that i have voted against african-american women nominees in the past, it is true and i am not arguing that every member of the senate should vote for loretta lynch simply because she would be the first african-american woman to serve in that capacity. all i'm saying, she deserves the same fair treatment we have given to other nominees for this job. she has now been pending before the senate longer than any nominee for attorney general in the last 30 years.

she has been on the calendar now -- on the calendar waiting for a vote for a longer period of time than the last five nominees for attorney general combined. why? it has nothing to do with her qualifications for the job which are the very best. why in the world are we taking this important post -- attorney general of the united states of america -- why are we taking this important civil rights moment when the first african-american woman in history is being given an opportunity to serve and entangling it in the politics of the senate? a week ago the majority leader, senator mcconnell said right outside this chamber he was going to call her nomination this week. we breathed a sigh of relief. she's been waiting so long. then over the weekend the last

weekend, he announced she wouldn't be called until a bill pending on the floor is passed. yes, i am upset and frustrated on her behalf to think that she is being treated in this manner. i'm not going to use any pejorative terms other than to say i believe it's insensitive for the senate to hold her up for such a lengthy period of time with no, no objection to this woman's character fitness and ability to continue to serve the united states. she has served, you know. she's currently in a position as the u.s. attorney in new york. she has the support of the following organizations: the national district attorneys association, the federal law enforcement officers association, the international association of chiefs of police, the major cities chiefs

association, the association of prosecuting attorneys the f.b.i. agents association and a long list of republican and democratic appointed former u.s. attorneys including patrick fitzgerald from my own state and scott lezar from the northern district of illinois. she has the support of the former f.b.i. director louie freeh and larry thompson from the george w. bush administration. mr. president, under ordinary circumstances this would have been an easy ask for the president to bring a person of this quality to the senate for confirmation. she had three votes supporting her in the judiciary committee from the republican side. i don't understand the objections of the others, but i respect whatever their reasoning. all that i am asking for, all the president is asking for, all the senate is asking for is a vote. a vote. bring her off the pages of the

calendar before the senate for a vote. don't make it contingent on some bill or some political agreement in the future. let this woman who has led such an extraordinary life, have her chance to continue to serve the united states of america. that to me, is only fair and only just and would be in keeping with the traditions of

>> we have in front of us a

budget that would repeal the affordable care act that 16.4 million americans now are using to get health care for themselves and their families. the uninsured rate has fallen from over 20% to 13% which is extraordinary. we all know there are fewer americans in bankruptcy now, thereby mob tuelingds to sure you don't get dropped. but what we have in this budget is a very interesting situation. i disagree totally with eliminating the affordable care act but if this budget is going to do that, then it needs to make sure and recognize that adds to the deficit.

this keeps the revenue rates while cutting health care for people. and then to mask fact that it would add to the deficits

there's a specific exclusion on page 69 of the chairman's mark that would exempt the affordable care act from being counted when it comes to increasing our long-term deficit. that's not fair. i would argue that's really budget gimmickry. i think it's important if you are going to eliminate the affordable care act you have to step up and assume the consequences of that. and one of those according to the congressional budget office is the fact that our deficit will go up.

>> i had talked about it before. then so essentially i was offering both the medicare amendment just as a -- your staff asked that i redo it so we've redone it in terms of introducing it. but i'm speaking to the insure health bills don't add to the deficit amendment which would make sure that we have really honest budgeting.

>> we double counted that money. this says you can't have any more cuts, i suppose any more reduction in outlays for medicare. but our colleagues have done in passing the affordable care act by far had the largest cut of spending for medicare in the history of the program.

>> this amendment just simply creates a says spending neutral but i'm happy to change that to deficit neutral reserve funds to prevent the federal funds for the bailout of any state and local governments. it simply would not be fair to

states that actually are fiscally responsible like the state of wisconsin. oregon is over 90%, tennessee is over 90%. with the looming deficits that we have in our country we certainly can't afford as a federal government to be bailing out state and local governments. >> i'm sure senator johnsing would work with me to make sure we don't bail out the crooks on wall street and leave millions of people without their homes jobs or life savings. and i'm sure you want to join me in making sure we don't bail out defense contractors.

>> a question for the author. is that local transportation money, community development block grants? is that funding of health

centers? is that -- i mean, what do you account? because i don't know of any situation where we've bailed out cities or counties or states per se. we certainly support services public services. are you suggesting -- what are you suggesting i guess? >> specifically it's prohibit federal funds to prevent receivership or exit from receivership or default on obligations except in natural disaster. 47 municipalities have filed for pruptsy. and that's what's contemplated here trying to bail those cities for example like detroit and they're -- >> i did not ask for a bailout. and we welcome you to come and take a look. >> i understand that but there were people potentially talking about that. maybe not the government officials but again i'm just

trying to make sure we get on record that we will not be bailing out those states those local governments that might be going into receivership or bankruptcy.

is there opposition? next would be senator perdue. amendment make clear benefit for aliens be added unlawfuly

present in the country? senator ayotte. i have an amendment. to invest in conservation and from my perspective i think

affordable energy drives our economy. new hampshire is a beautiful state where we have been able to balance energy efficiency with natural resources. this would allow us to pursue an all of the above energy strategy and look at how we develop the best energy domestic wise and also the best technology to protect our environment. >> is there opposition?

>> we need to invest billions of dollars in energy efficiency weatherization and sustainable energy. so her amendment is exactly the right thing. but we have to go beyond a deficit neutral reserve fund. >> senator baldwin. >> i would like to bring up the baldwin amendment to strike section 405 of the budget resolution. this amendment is cosponsored by senator warner. it would strike section 405 of the chairman's mark which eliminated a point of order against reconciliation leage that would increase the deficit or reduce a surplus. i can see no good reason why we should be making it easier to

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

be about reducing the deficit. i find it more than curious that this one of the most important tools in this process to make sure that we don't add to the debt, that we don't add to the deficit if we use reconciliation they have the goal of reducing the deficit why anyone in favor of taking on the crisis of debt that goes up $120 billion per point and additional interest rates just fail to understand why one of the protections put in at great strife overcoming democratic opposition that anyone that was fiscally responsible would want to take that out. >> the reason is that was put in just after you did the affordable care act so that nobody could do anything with the affordable care act.

so all this section does is repeal provisions that restrict the equality treatment of all -- well, this resolution repeals provisions that restrict the treatment of all bills and it's needed to restore that equal treatment. so this will eliminate something that would make it consistent with budget law prior to the year 2008. but all reconciliation bills should be created equal. there's something called the byrd rule that demands not increase the deficit in the long term. so there's a longstanding historicle protection that will ensure that what you're trying to do will be done. the next amendment senator

portman. >> the language has been altered removing the appropriate references to that. this is app amendment that talks about reducing redundancy. recall we did pass legislation last year that helps in this regard called the career act cosponsored by senator bennett and myself. this would say that although we have made some problem it has a long way to go. it complements the amendment we discussed earlier. i believe senator kaine is going to cosponsor this

amendment as well. to the point he made earlier this is taking this to worker retraining programs. we know that approximately $1 billion is used to administer 47 training programs over 9 federal agencies. 44 of those 47 programs are viewed to be overlapping with one another by the g.a.o. with regard to the programs g.a.o. says little is known about the effectiveness of most programs. we talked earlier about the need for not just more jobs but better jobs. that's going to come from closing the skills gap. this is an incredibly important way to do it. this is an opportunity to improve access to these programs also enhance their outcomes. i urge all my colleagues to support the portman cane amendment on worker retraining.

senator americaly. >> earlier we had senator kaine's proposal regarding career and technical education and deficit neutral fund. i have a companion legislation that addresses science technology engineering math matics. i'm proposing that i strike that out. this addresses a portion not addressed previously. stem education incredibly important to many of our high growth areas. these programs are offered as after school programs which provide a tremendous opportunity for kids who would otherwise be latch key kids heading home to an empty house

and stay. these are robotic programs where they learn teamwork leadership journalistic skills and engineering skills. and that's been a tremendously successful program in many parts of my state but it's so small an investment that many schools are unable to participate. hold the opportunity for us to be able to expand those programs.

>> i've provided for two amendments but i'm going to do a second one over on that side. then we have two on this side left. >> thank you, mr. chair. i have an amendment to establish a deficit neutral reserve fund relating to ongoing d.o.d. initiatives. the amendment looks to support their efforts to strengthen installation infrastructure to withstand impacts from sea level rise and other climate impacts. the region in my state home to the largest naval station nor foik as well as other installations. in this region sea level rise is occurring much faster than

the historical rate of one foot a century. a study shows that the main road into the largest naval base in the road will be inundated by daily tides two to thee hours a day. this has been a flood-prone region but all acknowledge that delamente change is a significant factor. when i pointed out the problem this posed a d.o.d. witness said you're not the only place affected. try running a military base without a water supply. this is affecting military basis all over the country. the d.o.d. released a road map last fall to outline what measures it's taking and the g.a.o. released an analysis last summer of how the d.o.d. can improve its infrastructure using three states as example. alaska, california, and virginia. with the prospect of a

brackground in the future which we hope to avoid a reserve fund such as this could help states deal and maybe avoid a brack scaledown or closure. i ask support for my amendment. >> opposition? this is meant to be flippant. doesn't that deepen your port? the next amendment then would be by senator graham followed by senator toomy. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment will increase the oco account by $38 billion and i don't know if we have the charts on isil. in 2011, we entered into sequestration and there's a

chart somewhere around here that would show you where isil is today in terms of territory they hold. they didn't basically exist then. the reason i'm trying to increase -- they're probably coming there. the reason i'm trying to increase the oco account is because the president rightly said we may leaf more troops behind in afghanistan we planned. the number is going to climb if we are going to be successful. overseas contingency operations in 2015 are completely dencht in terms of what we expected in 2011 and we pay for this increase by taking the savings outside the 10-year window and moving them forward. i would yield to senator ayotte who has been the a champion of this cause. >> i'm a cosponsor and i would say given the threats we face

around the world our military presence in both iraq and the air strikes we're conducting this is the defense situation and what we need to do have changed democratically and as we look here this is appropriated to increase money for oco given the threats we face around the world requiring the deployment of our troops and assets. i thank senator graham. >> senator toomy. >> i want to fully acnonl the important work that senator graham and others have done out of a legitimate concern of defense funding level. i share their concern. i'm also concerned that this creates a mechanism by which defense spending could be increased significantly. it is my strongly held view that while we need to increase

our spending for our long-term viability as a nation we need to reinin spending and we need to offset increases necessary on the defense side. i'm going to support the amendment in the form it is

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

we're going to put it in the overseas contingency account. it's not deficit spending but it is real money. so in my view we can argue about how much more we need for defense. we are already spending more than the next nine countries. but at the very least i hope my republican colleagues would remember what they've been lecturing the american people about year after year after year and that is that deficits are real. let's not have a gimmick. let's debate it. this is a total gimmick. >> other comments? >> i want to note that when we were working hard for a couple of years trying to use the overseas contingent account to address the doctor fix in medicare we were told it's a

fake account. if it's a fake account dock fix is a fake cut let's get rid of both of them. we never did that in terms of medicare but now we're talking about taking the fake account and moving it ahead to increase defense spending. i just think we should do it in a much more straightforward way and pay for it. >> all time is expired on the amendment. senator toomy. >> thank you, mr. chairman. so my amendment is in direct response to the amendment that senator graham and others -- my concern is in the abseps of my amendment and assuming that senator graham's amendment succeeds we will have significantly increased oako spending. and if that spending actually is appropriated which it might well occur then the oco base line is increased

correspondingly and that adds up to a large number over 10 years. what my amendment would do is ensure that the amount of oco funding that would be spared from a budget point of order would in 2017 be the number that it would be whether or not senator -- in the event senator graham's amendment would not succeed. we don't permanently expand the oco level of funding. it occurs in one year and not thraft. >> opposition to the toomy amendment. we'll go ahead with additional amendments. and how about we have the next tranche of votes at 4:00. we'll cover all the ones that we've got here so far.

i think senator widen would be next. do you have an amendment? >> colleagues i understand this is a controversial issue. this really goes back for me when i was codirector of the oregon gray panthers. i had a full head of hair and rugged good looks. it was a long time ago. >> beyond my memory. >> and medicaid alone covered 60% of nursing home residents.

i know we're going to have a discussion and throw numbers around fast and furious as is the case because that is what we do in budgets. but i just want colleagues to understand if we pass this amendment, i am interested in working with folks on both sides of the aisle in working to strengthen this program. i want us to recognize, i think this kind of approach is going to put at risk a crucial benefit that millions of grand parents andparents and families

rely on from one part of the country. reform absolutely. there's not one of these programs that we can't reform. and i look at my colleagues on the other side of the aisle whether it has been comprehensive reform. senator crapeo and i have teamed up a number of you have been part of important bipartisan efforts where we ensure the protex and well being of vulnerable people.

this sbudget going to be harsh on vulnerable older people in nursing homes. growing at a substantial will receive no reductions in that growth. neither did food stamps and a lot of other programs. any good reform has got to be more than tinkering around the

edges. a program that helped the poor and not elderly. senator widen i do believe you are very sincere. i think the language in here would go further than i would be willing to agree >> colleagues it strikes right at the heart of the entitlement issue. there is something in between doing no policy reforms. i understand that. i'm very much aware we need policy reforms to do that. there's something in between that and $400 billion which in my view is going to put at risk so many of these older people.

and i'm sure all of you i've seen a number of you talk about the demographics in the days ahead. in a lot of instances they will exhaust their private resources. senator sessions talks about new policies one thing i have been interested in are fresh approaches. that's going to take some time. we have people i believe are going to suffer under this approach.

>> i'm not sure that -- based on my past experience used to be the chairman we were able to eliminate some programs streamline programs combine some programs and make a difference so that the effective child care programs were able to continue and have a little more money. i'm not sure into the wording of this that that would be a possibility of anything in medicaid. we've got to be able to scrutinize these things. we ought to allow the flexibility. and my experience with any program if you reduce the level of request you're considered to cut the budget there has to be definition on what is involved in that.

the next amendment is senator crapeo. >> this is to end operation chokepoint. late last summer news reports surfaced regarding an initiative that targets certain indstriss' ability to banking without showing they're breaking the law. rather than targeting bad actors this effort known as operation chokepoint is causing banks to deny or terminate credit lines due to fear of d.o.j. subpoenas or regulatory action. legitimate industries legal but not acceptable are now facing the threat of the d.o.j. oversight and unjustified regulatory pressure. one of the supporters of this

amendment the chamber of commerce has stated enforcement agencies have the tools to root out fraud and predation directly and the chamber supports their efforts to do so. but under operation chokepoint government officials punish entire categories of lawful businesses by instilling fear in the institutions that bank them. this has left banks with little choice but to terminate longstanding relationships with customers because of threats from their regulator or the department of justice. who are these disfavored industries? we found out that one of them is the firearms and ammunition industry in the united states. in idaho we heard from several owners who experienced difficulty finding banking services as a result of this operation. at the urging of many members of congress the federal financial regulators updated their reg lative guidance and

frankly ended the list of unacceptable businesses in the united states but they've continued operation chokepoint getting them to withdraw their list of unacceptable businesses was a good first step but we must eliminate this inappropriate program. thags why i'm offering this program to establish a deficit neutral fund to end the operation chokepoint and protect the second amendment. this is supported not just industries related to the second amendment. by the american bankers association, independent community bankers of america. the department of justice must not politicize its enforcement policies and we must not let operation chokepoint continue.

>> mr. chairman the description we have just heard is unrecognizeable to the program as it exists. what is this program really about? it is this. that transactions are occurring that pull money out of citizens banks accounts without their permission. these remote transactions have been used in a predatory fashion across america. in north carolina there was one bank that suffered an assault in which 2.4 billion dollars was taken out of their customers' accounts without their permission. there was a case in california where a large sum was taken out of customers' accounts for services that they did not order. these type of transactions have been a problem of theft of predatory theft from ordinary

citizens. so the department of justice put together a working group to say this must stop. now, there has been the allegation as we 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 don't end the program but modify it so that the legitimate transactions of legitimate businesses are not affected. and so that means that would continue to target these predatory activities that are stealing money from american citizens while making sure legitimate activities are not touched. so i offer that amendment. >> senator americaly and i have been discussing. i'm not in a position where i can accept this amendment because it allows operation

chokepoint to continue. 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 just quickly read from the american bankers association a letter. this was signed by the credit unions, the independent community bankers and the american bankers association. senator crapeo's amendment would in no way inhibit the enforcement of ant fraud laws. all of the requirements of the bank's secrecy act and other ant fraud stat tultes would continue in full force and effect just as they did before the operation of -- the creation of operation chokepoint. then they go on to point out how the barningse and credit unions work closely with d.o.j. and financial regulators to deal with the exact kinds of issues that the senator is raising. my point is simply this. there is no reason for us to

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

>> next senator white house. >> thank you very much. we have a responsibility to meet the emergency management needs of the country and the disaster expenses that we face. we find in recent years what has actually been put into the budget has been running around 1.5 to 2 very recently $6 billion. but we actually spend over these years $53 billion. $13 billion, and $55 billion -- $17 billion in 2013. so there is a recurring gap between what we budget for and what we experience in our disaster response. this amendment would create a deficit neutral reserve fund

that would relate to fema's ability to prepare. in rhode island we've seen unprecedented fishery disasters, storm activity from sandy, homes washed into the sea, ten inches of measured sea level rise. and as the carbon loading that we're doing to our atmosphere and oceans continues the continued weather weirding and weather wilding that we are seeing all over the place is going to keep i think reasonable people could project and experience would lead us to project those disaster experiences high. so i hope that we can support the deficit neutral reserve fund relating to the preparedness of the agency to respond both on land and in the ocean. for those of us in ocean states we are seeing ocean disasters as well for which we then have to fight for emergency funding because we have not adequately

prepared ourselves for what is foreseeable. >> in opposition i would mention that if you look at some of the details in the budget something that i complained about since i got to the senate is in there and what i complained about was at that time we were having about $4 billion a year in disasters but it was always an emergency. and i said if you've got $4 billion a year maybe you ought to plan ahead and put it into the budget. that has gone up to $7 be a year. so you find i put $7 billion a year in for each of the 10 years of the budget so that we would actually be acknowledging the disasters. so that's probably -- [inaudible] >> year by year. so we hope we can agree on at least this. >> the director of e.p.a. was

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

that we've had more of all of these and i look forward to her answers. >> senator johnson. >> thank you. i think as a if he willo you probably are every bit as frustrated as i am on just obtaining information on programs. i am hoping this amendment will follow on the same bipartisan spirit of trying to obtain the information. i am concerned that as we have now implemented obamacare cbo in their projections have stopped reporting the numbers the cost of obamacare or the patient profecks affordable care act the way they are in trying to get the bill passed. this is a simple amendment that requires reporting of the cost of the affordable care act. i am hoping this will garner bipartisan support. >> opposition?

>> mr. chairman if i might ask if the senator would be willing to add costs and savings as an amendment. >> absolutely. whatever the full measure the full information in terms of the effect of the health care law is on our budget. >> is the senator then willing to amend his amendment to deal with -- >> i will work with the senator to find out what language we need to include in there. >> anything further in opposition? your side again.

>> this is an amendment i had with senator ayotte. may not solve every problem that we are addressing but is a small step forward. this is the some of the outgrowth of the task force the government performance task force where we pass legislation to eliminate duplicative and unnecessary reports. we got rid of 300 of them last year. we now have 4,000 on a list reviewed on a regular basis. this would again simply nurture this process along. senator ayotte may want to speak to this. >> i just want to support senator warner on this. this has been important work that we have done in the performance task force. so i fully support this amendment. it is good government. it makes sense. and i thank him for bringing it. >> we have been able to

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

epidemic. we need to work with law enforcement as well but we can't arrest our way fully out of this problem which is devastating people in this country. >> opposition? >> i would like to be added as a cosponsor. >> wousmed. >> i would too. >> without objection. tp back to your side again. senator king. >> i have one that's along the line of i call it the ron johnson style amendment of information. it simply to require the cbo congressional budget office when they produce the budget and economic outlook to produce a list of tax expenditures from 1965 to the present and

projected for the following ten years. this is a different slightly different format than senator white house but it basically would simply require that information to be in the congressional budget office budget and economic outlook that they produce every year. very straight forward. just information. >> chairman king do you consider things like home mortgage deduction or charitable contributions as a tax expenditure? >> yes. any of the deductions. it's the whole package. just the total amount would all have to be listed just so that we have that information. >> that's one way to look at it. i don't think most people do. >> this isn't proposing that they necessarily be eliminateded or changed. just to have the information before us. >> may i be add as a cosponsor? mine puts this information into

this year's and his would require cbo to do it on a more continuing basis. i support and ask to be added as a cosponsor. tp >> on our side senator sessions would be next. >> mr. president. hundreds of billions of dollars in medicare savings to the hospital inshurns trust fund were double cuented under the affordable care act. at least $400 billion. cms fp says in practice the improved hospital insurance

financing cannot simultaneously be used to finance other federal outlays. such as coverage expansions under hipaca, the affordable care act, and to expand the trust fund. cbo said the key point is that savings to the trust fund under obamacare -- i'm quoting directly -- would be received by the government only once so they cannot be used to set aside to pay for future medicare spending and at the same time pay for current spending on other parts of legislation or on other programs. to describe the full amount of trust fund savings as both improving the government's ability to pay future medicare benefits and financing new spending outside medicare would essentially double count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the

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

>> we're going to have to study senator sessions' amendment. >> just for the record. when we were strengthening medicare with wellness visits and closing what we have called the done nut hole to allow more seniors to be able to get lower cost prescription drugs and all the other things that we did to strengthen medicare, we found in looking on the finance committee some areas where we could save dollars. one of those were at the time overpayments. certainly medicare advantage has an important role to play. but i remember asking the budget office at the time if we capped the payments for medicare advantage at 150% of what doctors and hospitals received through the direct medicare program would there be any savings and they said yes.

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

looked for savings and then strengthened medicare and in fact benefits for seniors have gone up. >> those suggestions do make sense. and that's so like when medicare costs were cut the money should have been used, for example, to fix the dock fix to pay the doctors but it was taken and spent on apaca and not for the doctors but your reform some of those did work as you said. >> because medicare is part of the overall federal budget the medicare savings and health reform both extend the life of the hospital insurance trust fund and reduce the federal budget deficit. the analogy hitting a home run. it adds to his team score and

it also improves his batting average. neither situation would be double counting. so to me we ought to kind of get on with, as i characaterize it again this morning another hearing affordable care act bipartisan approaches that are going to protect the medicare guarantee and generate savings. but i'm opposed to this amendment because by the way i would say not in a partisan way republican controlled congresses didn't object when cbo projected medicare savings to both extend the solvency of medicare and reduce the deficit under several other approaches the balanced budget act in 97 and deficit reduction act of 2005. i hope that we will reject this amendment and get on as we talked about this morning senator stab now and others were there with some bipartisan

approaches to protect the medicare guarantee particularly in the area of tackling chronic disease. thank you mr. chairman. >> you can't spend the same dollar twice. cbo and cms says that's what we have done. republicans did do it in the past. we need to end it. >> ok. we said we would vote at 4:00. it's a few minutes past 4:00. so we will go ahead and get started. the first amendment up is senator king. with his sequester replacement. we're beginning to vote. people need like five minutes. >> would you mind if we took 5 minutes before beginning that?

>> are we taking a break? i didn't hear your conclusion. >> i was hoping not. but how many requests are there to take a break. none. ok. we will go ahead then. >> this amendment creates a deficit neutral reserve fund to be a place keeper for finding a

solution to the sequester which we all agree is not good. it says that it should be both defense and nondefense. and it allows spending cuts as well as revenues. >> opposition? >> mr. chairman, senator king appropriately wants to end sequestration. and i think almost all of us agree with him on that. but the way his amendment is written it called to be offset with changes in mandatory programs and receipts. there are many ways you can do it but it does leave the possibility open for significant cuts in social security and medicare and for that reason i will oppose that amendment. >> by the way, my amendment now says receipts. it should say revenues.

i would amend it to change the word receipts to revenues. i think it's clear in order to clarify it further. >> i think i would ask you do it on the floor. my comments would have been very similar to senator sanders and that's pretty scary. so we're ready to vote. >> the clerk will call the roll.

are there any who wish to change their votes? >> the yeas are 10, the nays are 12. >> the amendment is defeated. next would be senator sessions. i think he has modified his amendment. >> with permission i would like

to modify more appropriately after the words benefits for aliens. i would ask to insert the words without legal status. i think that is a better way to phrase it and i want to we need immigration reform to address all of these things. i think it is important that we not penalize children who are

here leelly but i think it's very important for the record to say that anyone who is not here legally cannot receive today the earned income tax credit social security food stamps traditionally will be called welfare programs housing vouchers the affordable care act medicare pell grants and social security disability and i just think it's important because implication has been that somehow people are receiving services that are not here legally and i would put that in the record. i hope we will focus together on comprehensive immigration reform. >> but some are by fraudulently using social security or i-10's and this would just correct that. >> there's a request from the i.r.s. that we be more specific. do you want a roll call vote? please call the roll.

>> the yeas are 12, if nays are 10. >> the amendment is adopted. next is the sappeders amendment. >> senator too manyy i think hit the nail on the head when he talked about the debate here. let's get rid of all campaign limitations which means for billionaires can give directly to candidates. now who are those members of congress elected with the help of billions going to be representing? do you think they're going to be representing the middle class and working families of this country? you're going to be a paid

employee for the billionaire class. i think enough is enough. we've got to overturn citizens united. we need full disclosure when people put ads on television. i would ask for a yes vote. >> can i respond? >> i would just observe that the ranking member seems to give very, very little credit to the intellect of the voters. if in fact members of congress were the paid employees of billionaires, i would rather think that would be noticeable to voters and they would be quite free to exercise their discretion at not electing someone who was an employee of billionaires. i don't know why we have so little confidence in the electorate. >> do you want a roll call vote? >> absolutely. >> please call the roll.

>> the amendment fails. the next amendment is mr. crapo's amendment. >> i will yield to senator warper. >> republicans supported it. we should not be using the fees going to support our industry as a piggy bank for other programs. it's rare to see a group where you have bankers all aligned. this is a fiscally responsible

amendment and i would urge passage. >> any objection? >> seeing none all those in favor say aye. opposed. carried. next one is the murray amendment. >> this is the amendment that takes the deficit neutral reserve fund provided in section 307 and allows us to use some drastically needed issue for our veterans and service members including providing additional job training programs, specialty services importantly care giver support that i think we all know that many of our veterans aging veterans need as well. allows them to stay in their homes and work with v.a.'s infrastructure needs which are dramenty and mental health care as well as providing fertility treatment for our critically injured veterans who can no longer have families. i think it's important to expand this fund to make sure we address the real needs of

our service members. >> i'm really encouraged by the ability of both reserve funds to provide the body with the ability to address the issues that are confronting our veterans. i would ask for a yes vote. is there any opposition to a voice vote? >> we've move it to the end of the que. >> i understand they're still working through some issues. so if we don't do it here we'll do it on the floor. >> you have one for striking a section as well. your second amendment. >> so moving to the next one.

we have poirds of course in this budget resolution on anything that would add to the deficit but we see 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. it's acknowledged by anything that increases the deficit. i think we need honesty in budgeting if this budget repeals the affordable care act and all the services for 16.4 million men and women and children right now who are receiving health care for the first time maybe ever and we know that repealing this will

increase the deficit and we need to be honest about it. >> roll call vote.

are rb the nays are -- the yeas are 10, the nays are 1. the amendment fails. >> estimates of underfunded and unfunded liability in state and local pensions is approaching $5 trillion. so this amendment simply reduces the funds for bailing out the got. sends a necessary signal that hard working taxpayers from other states should not be asked to bail out those states and localities. >> opposition?

>> i think this is overly press cryptive. we don't know what's going to happen. so i would urge a no vote. >> suspect a roll call is required then. call on the clerk.

mr. chairman, the yeas are 15 the nays are 7. >> the amendment's approved. senator warner, v.a. and law school clinics. senator warner. >> mr. chairman, this is the effort -- that i believe even senator graham would support. that basically says let's kick the v.a. -- urge the v.a. a little bit. i again commend the great work so many have done to actually engage with more law schools around the country to create veterans law clinics to help these law students process the claims. it doesn't cost the taxpayer a dime helps the law students, helps the veterans. and the v.a. just needs to be a little more engaged in being promotive of this. i would urge a voice vote. >> any opposition?

all those in favor say aye. opposed. the amendment is accepted. next is the ayotte amendment on energy. >> i have an amendment that would address very important provisions on energy deficit neutral reserve right providing assistance to those who are low income,. 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 having we protect the environment.