the difficult choices, we need to manage our priorities and tackle our debt. the republicans budget uses this to hide the extra defense spending in funds. the reason for this has nothing to do with budgetary, nothing to do with defense. it has to do with internal republican politics. in the past, we have been able to meet and exceed those who seek to do harm to the u.s.. and our citizens way of life. shining example of american exceptionalism. but with the new security challenges we face, this will be tested once again. these are just some of the reasons i have proposed to raise the caps on in defense spending. i think all of my colleagues would agree with me that we need a strong defense.

do not read our training manuals and as former head of the training command, said that they lack fully qualified young people, a menacing threat to our national security. we need to do complex calculation. quincy will have one minute to close. >> thank you. question woman of oklahoma. >> thank you. i want to yield my good friend two minutes. >> at thank the gentleman. it is ironic my friend talks about uncertainty in the early part of his argument in favor of his amendment. in my opinion, the only thing certain about what we are attempting to do here is the exacerbation or the acceleration of the very problem that put us in the position we are in right now. these caps and firewalls are a matter of law.

i want to share this through the lens of an appropriator. a couple on my side of the aisle , ms. lee and mr. ryan, do the same. we are in the position we are in right now because of what we're seeing there in the red. if you go back to 1962, you can see that about two thirds of spending that we all talk about from an appropriations standpoint, was on the discretionary side. it has now flipped in that we have got about two thirds of spending now that is part of the mandatory equation. all the gentleman is effectively trying to do is restore the president's budget numbers to this particular scenario. it is exactly those numbers that exacerbate the debt and the net interest on the debt, the area in purple on the very top.

a ticket out and before my two-year-old grandson turns 12, to about 785 are in dollars of hard-earned taxpayer money, just to pay the minimum payment due the net interest on the debt for the expected that in the 10 year window, most of the people on my side of the aisle and everybody in your side of the aisle, have some disagreement with the concept of sequester. this may be our opportunity to come back to a bigger deal. the answer is not -- >> an additional 30 seconds. >> the answer is not to restore the numbers allocated in a president's budget to try to fix the problem, which will most certainly exacerbate the situation i spoke about beginning. i yield back my time. quite i thank you, gentlemen and i yield to my good friend. >> thank you. to add to what he said without

changing the law, it is taken out during sequester appeared on fortunately we cannot do it in this. i think we need to look at defense spending and i agree a lot with what the sponsor have said. if that were not enough, this also does reduce boko. that is one thing we can do in this committee. we can increase and help our defense funding through there. this amendment reduces what we can do an increased slightly cannot do. this is just not the way to do it. i yield back. >> let me make four points, if i could. first one, and implication about who the serious about deficit reduction and who is not. i want to remind my friends when they were in the majority every

single year, we came into the majority, it was $1.4 trillion. since we have been there, it has fallen every single year. we can argue about this or that proposal and who is probably reduced spending. there is not much question about it. the second point i want to talk about is the one my friend made. remember, sequester is neither a gimmick nor a proposal or a policy. it is the law. a law that the president proposed that would recommend my friends to read the wonderful book the price of politics. sequester is a presidential idea in the gut -- in negotiation which ultimately passed the house with a lot of democratic votes, passed a democratic senate and was signed by a democratic president. this was not some republican idea enforced on everybody. it certainly has its problems, but it contributed to the lowering of the deficit. when people -- when people talk about gimmicks and fantasies

the fantasy is to propose tax agreements you do not know will happen. we will see what happens this time when we put the president's buzz it -- budgets on the floor. very few of my friends on the other side of the aisle bothered to vote for it. these task races are the ultimate gimmick of all time. i want to be shamelessly parochial here. i noticed there is an effort to get with the oil and gas industry here through so-called subsidies. there are no subsidies. there are tax credits are basically what intangible drilling costs are, the same thing we do with the manufacturing tax credit. if you look at the effective tax rate, it is much lower than most weird it is not in under taxed industry. if the reason for tax incentives are increased reduction, this

has been a spectacular success. your constituents are paying courtesy of oil tanks. that is because we incentivized in industry that actually operated ended the things it is supposed to do. third, this is the national security advantage for the united states. we are not subject to being blackmailed by oil-producing states as we have in the passport finally, would point out this is an industry, also because it has been so successful in producing, it is now going through a very difficult time and will laying off of people. . lay taxes on the industry exactly as it is laying off people. i would urge the rejection of my friend's amendment and again remember the deficit is lower.

frankly, there are very serious flaws and of the want to change the law, we need to sit down and negotiate with the president who suggested and signed the law and with that, i yield back. >> the chair is recognized for one minute to close. >> thank you. i would agree with some of the things you mentioned. sequestration was aimed at keeping spending down. the fact of the matter is, what we are seeing in this budget is one side of that equation going up. what we're saying here is we absolutely agree with you with regards to armed services. we all hear what is going on. we all need those increases. but there are two size to the equation. it is important to raise defense, it is also important for those programs sorely needed on the other side of the equation. with the budget the way it sits now, it funds the department of

defense exactly where the amendment -- thank you. i yield back. >> all those in favor will say i . those opposed say no. the clerk will call the role. >> mr. mikita, no. mr. garrett, no. mr. cole. no. --

mr. westerman no. mr. van hollen, aye. mr. yarmuth, aye. ms. moore aye. ms. caster, --

dingell, aye. mr. lew aye. moulton, aye. chairman no. classes any member wish to change the vote? >> mr. chairman, on that vote, the eyes are 14 and the nose are 22. >> the nose have it any amendment is not agreed to. the next amendment is the first one out of numerical order amendment number 11 county clerk will designate designated amendment and the staff will contribute. >> amendment number 11 relating to visit -- veterans programs. >> recognized for six minutes.

. the president's's requested level by 1.9 billion dollars for fiscal year 15. in short, such ensure the services provided would never be at risk in a government shutdown para protecting our veterans is not an option, but a duty. we oh it to service members to provide them with education and job training and long-term treatment. they have earned this in service to our nation. veterans continually suffer from high and employment and suicide and homelessness. we can do better. that begins by relieving the sequester for the budget, which puts many programs at risk. i see firsthand it is insufficient funding for v.a. programs, creates an environment where veterans fall through the

>>. inadequate psychological treatment programs and technology systems have created a crisis that too little funding will only exacerbate. the only explanation offered by staff for the savings is that they could come from a proposal and part of president's plan. if at authority part of the plant, the savings are baked into his budget and his request. i get my health care from the v.a. and i do not like we're doing enough with four veterans to begin with. cutting almost $2 billion from the president's request will directly harmed the veterans we are committed to serving. further, my amendment would make all the discretionary programs of the department of veterans affairs subject, which would ensure the funding in place for all the programs in the beginning of each fiscal year. currently, only the v.a.'s's medical programs, possibly 85% of the budget, is provided a year in advance through the appropriations.

this amendment makes eligible the appropriation for the remaining 15%. the operation at the veterans benefits operation. hundred 13th congress, jeff miller along with 22 democratic and republican members introduced hr 813, the veterans funding first act. similar to my amendment, the legislation would have required congress the discretionary budget a year ahead of schedule ensuring the v.a. services and funding would not be in jeopardy in the event of a shutdown. after the legislation was reduced, chairman miller said if there is one thing people across america agree on is that we should never let funding for veterans become a casualty of washington gridlock. 13 had the support of many veterans organizations including paralyzed veterans of america and disabled veteran americans. these veterans organizations are co-opted of the independent

budget, which strongly supports my amendment. i would like to submit for the record a brief statement of the independent budget co-op -- co-authors in support of him and me today. i know the committee will not agree on much, but we ought to be able to agree on this. veterans should be a national priority. adopting the amendment should reaffirm our commitment to america's veterans, the men and women put their lives on the line to defend the country and protect our freedom and i urge my colleagues on the committee to adopt the amendment, which would protect vital services and programs for veterans of war's past and present. i am pleased to yield the remainder of my time to my colleague and fellow veteran the government from california. >> thank you. i am also honored to cosponsor the amendment. i just want to make the point and i get many amendments today are very sharp ideological differences. this is not one of them. in january, our congress on a bipartisan basis passed a law

increasing funding to help prevent veteran suicides. this congress as well as prior congresses repeatedly sought to help veterans. this talks about a fairly small amount of money in the veterans budget. i understand your budget makes a lot of cuts in other places. you do not have to go after veterans. there is no need to do this. it is something where you could vote yes on this amendment. i simply urge you to take a look at it. i think the language offered by my colleague is reasonable and helps protect veterans especially during's shutdown spirit this is an amendment that cuts across ideological lines. it is something all of us can support. i urge you to support the amendment and that -- with that i yield back.

quite the gentleman yields back and the german from indiana is recognized for seven minutes in opposition. i thank you. i will just say this, i know our veterans are very important to the committee and all members of congress. if it were not for them and services to the country, we would not be the great nation we are. having said that, serving on the veteran affairs committee for one term knowing the challenges we face within the administration it has been very frustrating. this should not be the way that it is. i know a lot of work has been done in congress. my believe is more work has been done in congress in trying to correct what is going on in the v.a. than what has been done in the administration. we continue to see challenges, problems, by this administration

dealing with the shortcomings in the communication gaps, these projects moving forward with us last week, i was in fort wayne indiana, as we opened a new mental health facility for our veterans in northeast indiana and i can tie your that is a really important facility for them. the work done to make sure as far as the facility to make sure it is physically that's fiscally responsible, i can attest to that fact, but there is a gap the communication of the local and national ministration. i know how hard our folks are working. doctors and nurses, administrations that the local level, their work and hard to serve our veterans. they are not getting the same response back from the national ministration.

what chairman miller and the rest of veteran affairs committee has done is to continue to provide oversight and reform our support programs for our nation's veterans. it is something that is really important to all of our communities. just by -- just because we could always assume more money will fix a problem, but it has not this is not a fixed problem within the v.a. and the administration. we are not cutting spending for our veterans. this is washington speak. we are talking about the president's budget and we will take what the president proposes we propose a 5% increase over last year. that is not a cut. it is a budget. we're still moving forward and what are we going to spend for our veterans? anyone say this is a cut, it is a cut from a proposal but not real cuts. we are making sure our veterans

get the services they need after they have served our country. the president's shut down in 2000 13, 2014, whatever it was we saw veterans out on the mall trying to get to their memorial. what did the president do? the president put blockades up. we kept them out. if the president is willing to do that, i think that is not a service to our veterans, from keeping veterans from their own memorial, the ones they fought and died for. i really wish and hope members on the other side of the aisle let's work together and know that veterans, it is not a partisan issue. it is something important for us as a nation. many of my constituents believe strongly when our veterans come back home, we have to take care of them and not play political

games spirit with that i yield to my colleague from florida. i thank you. i believe the german was very thorough. it is important to note this is -- we all revere the veterans -- the veterans. the programs are already in advance appropriations. this is to give events appropriations to the congressional affairs. we know of the issues we have had with the v.a.. luckily had oversight by congress. what this does is takeaway a lot of our ability to provide oversight. let me give you an example given the difficulty of ea has had in developing a joint health record with the department of defense. it has been crucial for congress to oversee the spending in real time on the issue, rather than just spending the year on year,

assurances by the v.a., it has been crucial to have the oversight. we already do it, we already have this part for the veterans themselves. let me give you a number documented. the v.a. has trouble accurately estimating medical costs for accounts now receiving advance appropriations. now we want to give advance appropriations? the overestimates have been a size $3 billion. we all revere our veterans but this has not to do with the veterans, but with the department and agency that in some cases have failed our veterans and that we need to make sure they do not fail our veterans, which is why oversight is clear and key and important. this makes it more difficult to provide congressional oversight. i yield back.

>> i yield a minute to mr. cole. >> thank you for yielding to it i appreciate the democratic yanks -- democratic angst. it is an embarrassment not only to those who support the administration. it is an embarrassment to every american and a terrible travesty to our veterans and i get that. but throwing more money at a dysfunctional agency will not help our veterans. it is rewarding bad behavior by v.a. administrators. an old adage -- you cannot sell a broken bucket by filling more water in it. at some point, you have to fix the bucket. that is what the how -- the house veteran affairs committee is doing. meanwhile, the budget fully fund the veterans administration at the level of the congressional budget office to meet all its needs by 2016 and that is not a

cut but a 5% increase. i yield back. >> recognized for one minute to close. >> providing advance funding so that the v.a. does not lose its findings for not just the secretary but the benefits administration that administers the event -- the benefits that are so important to our veterans, it does not increase oversight. it just hurts our veterans. we can all agree with everything my colleague said. i will be the first to say as a recipient of the health-care v.a., this administration, our government, our congress, we all need to do more to it we need to do more for our veterans. i do nothing can 8% raises enough. that is my opinion. 5% is even worse and it will directly impact the veterans we need to serve. those are the people who that -- who hurt.

i lost two members of my second platoon since coming home due to poor health care at the v.a.. taking funding away from it right now is not the way to do it. i respectfully asked for your support for the amendment. >> all those in favor will say i've. opposed, say no. the nose have it. -- the no's have it. >> the clerk will call the roll. [clerk calls roll.] clerk: mr. cole, no. ms. black, no. mr. woodall no. ms. blackburn, no.

mr. sussman, no. mr. sanford? mr. mooney? mr. grossman, no. mr. palmer, no. mr. westerman, no. mr. buchanan, no. mr. van hollen aye. aye. aye. mr. ryan aye.

ms. moore, aye. ms. castor, aye. mr. mcdermott, aye. ms. lee, aye. mr. lew, aye. mr. norquest aye. mr. garrett no. mr. sanford, no. mr. mooney? mr. chairman, no. quite have all members voted? -- >> have all members voted? clerk: the eyes are 14 and the

no's art 21. -- are 21. >> this court will stand recess until 5:00 p.m. >> the house budget committee approved the budget pros -- proposal. a house rules committee meets monday to set up floor debate for the measure. the senate budget committee met on thursday to mark up its version of the 2016 budget proposal. the resolution aims to balance the budget in 10 years and cuts $5.1 trillion in per -- projected spending in the next decade. dozens of amendments on friday of domestic and foreign policy issues. $3 billion is proposed to be added on war funding, which brings the blueprint for the defense spending closer to the house plan. this is one hour and 35 minutes. [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]

>> i will call the committee to order and see if we can send out the innocuous for senator sanders or not, to be able to see the other end of the table. hopefully, the speaker systems were working. you have to push the buttons in order to speak. we do have a very busy day ahead of us. i would like to quickly summarize the ground rules i stated yesterday. members may only offer amendments, other than the complete substitute fully offset over the total of the year passes covered by the resolution. in addition, the senate amendments will be ruled out of order, as they always have been in this committee. we also will be consulting with parliamentarian resulting amendments to determine whether the amendments, if adopted would make this lose its

privilege. if this amendment -- amendments are advised, they will be ruled out of order. members have the right to modify their amendment or withdraw it. with regard to voting, committee rules do not permit processes. members must be present for votes in order to be recorded. if a voice vote occurs, the member must speak up if he wishes to be recognized as a nail on a voice vote or it my attention is to have centers offer debate in amendments and half-staff voting on the amendments throughout the day. i will be alternated between the sides of recognition. members are requested to attend the markup to the greatest extent possible. to that extent, i will be consulting with the ranking member to determine the best times for the stack votes to occur to avoid major conflicts with member schedules. for this many people, that is tough to do it we will work to the best of our ability and give you as much advanced notice as we can. i think members in advance for

the fuss ability to work with us and finish the markup by this evening in order to keep the markup moving, i request that when senators offer an amendment, they limit their remarks to three minutes. rebuttal will be limited to two minutes and when the vote occurs, one minute will be equally divided, and reserved prior to the vote. of course, one of the reasons we are able to get the amendments done in one day is usually the best ones are saved for the floor, i think. the matter before us is the chairman's mark for the current resolution of the budget for fiscal year 2016. now, turn to amendments. i would have the first opportunity to offer one, but i defer to the next senior one ready for amendment. ok. then we will go to senator sanders.

>> green table cross to match the color of money and maybe my green eye shades. mr. president, a new full reserve fund for welfare legislation to help struggling americans moved to the road of financial independence. there are 70 million working age folks not working. more than 40 million americans have been on food stamps. one in three americans receive some kind of support and one in three. i agree with senator sanders that we have a problem and i think we all agree we have a problem. it has been moving in this direction for a number of years. working americans are being hammered here. the federal government spends

now around $750 million on welfare and poverty programs with state contributions, $1 million per year. the money is that out over a program administered by a vast your accuracy with little oversight and no guiding moral vision about the purpose ultimately, of our government action. only a miniscule 1% of the spending is dedicated to job training while job training is fragmented into 47 different programs throughout the federal government. who among us can say there is not a more effective and compassionate way to spend this $1 trillion each year? we could spend $30,000 per year on every household, living in poverty the so spent half of what the welfare bureaucracy could assume each year. i would urge colleagues, let's create a deficit system that

will facilitate reform of the programs. my vision is that all government assistance programs would be consolidated into one office. the person in need would go to that office as part of the needs they receive. they would also beam -- be counseled and evaluated for job programs and work programs. it has been over 20 years since the last welfare reform. and this would simply allow us to better facilitate the reform that would help people in need and also help us over time reduce expenditures. >> any opposition? senator sanders.

>> with offender is doing is focusing on important issue but i think he is approaching it in the wrong way. as i understand it, what he has done his lump in his welfare programs, many programs that are essential for the middle-class in this country per within the umbrella term of welfare, he includes the earned income task credit, supplemental security income ssi funding for breast and cervical cancer, early detection, meals on wheels for seniors, the chip program and many other programs. now, senator sessions is right to point out, as i often do, that we have more people living in poverty today than almost any time in the modern history of america. the very next amendment that is going to be offered i will offer will create millions of jobs to start putting people back to

work when they need those jobs. we're going to be talking today about raising the minimum wage to a living wage so people don't need governmental programs talking about pay equity so women workers can get the same wages as men and in doing that significant significantly cutting poverty. right now we have a whole lot of people hurting, vulnerable. i think senator sessions amendment moves us in the wrong direction. senator stabineau, you want to add anything? >> this is something we would offer to help struggling americans on the road to financial independence. we see very different path. this pulls the rug out by those trying to get ahead, keeping things focused on those already wealthy or well-connected. i would say if we really want to lift people out of poverty, we could lift half the women in this country if we just made sure we have equal pay for equal work. we literally would lift half the women out of poverty. i'd love to join with the senator on alabama with those

things. that don't punish folks working two or three jobs trying to make it but create a path for opportunity. the intent of this goes unfortunately in the opposite direction. >> mr. chairman, a brief response? one minute? >> you'll get half a minute before we vote. >> okay. half a minute before we vote. we won't vote yet, stack the votes for later. they get two people and i get one. >> right. that's fair. >> you get three minutes and we get two minutes.

>> okay. >> they've gone to three people you might have got an yes. >> now, we'll go to senator sanders. >> thank you very much. >> i accept the goal of three and two. that's a fair limit on time, i suppose. suppose. >> mr. chairman, the amendment i'm offering now address, i think, some of the significant problems facing our country. i doubt that there's any person around this table or very few americans who do not understand that our infrastructure, roads bridges, water systems wastewater plants, airports, levees dams in this country are crumbling. we spent half of what europe does on infrastructure and significantly less than china. today, the world economic forum ranks our overall infrastructure at 12th in the world. we used to lead the world. we are now in 12th place. i hear many of my republicans friends and all of us talking about what kind of debt we leave to our kids. you know what, when your infrastructure is crumbling and when the american society for

civil engineers tells us we need over 3 trillion$3 trillion investment, if we don't deal with it now we're leaving that debt to our kids as well. i think we can agree we need infrastructure significant efforts to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. when we do that, we do something also very important, getting to senator sessions point. that is today, real unemployment in this country is not 5 1/2%. if you count those people given up looking for work or working part-time, it is 11%. it is higher among young people and very high in the construction industry. it seems to me now is the time to put city substantial funding into rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and make our system more efficient and productive at the same time, create millions of decent paying jobs. this is good for the economy good for the country and good for our future. i would hope we can have anonymous support for an effort to put people back to work at

good wages while we rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. that's what this amendment is about. about. >> i guess we'd have to take just about the same approach you did on the last one, the title sounds good but the details get into some problems. i don't think there are any of us that aren't interested in increasing the infrastructure, we're just interested in increasing the infrastructure in a logical way that's paid for. that's what a budget neutral deficit does. so senator portman. >> it was interesting because ranking member sanders talked about world rankings, we were 12th in the world on infrastructure -- >> i'm sorry? >> you said we were 12th in the world now on our infrastructure. there's another world ranking put out by the world bank and it says we are 41st now in the country by the world bank and it

says that we are 41st now on our ability to get a permit for the construction project. in other words, to get a green light something. and we have bipartisan legislation to address that, senator casse kill and myself. i see you've got solutions here on tax loopholes and so on and there may be opportunities to have tax reform that includes some funding for infrastructure, but we've also got to look at this issue and this is why the building trades council supports others, how do we green light something? whether it's an energy project, solar, energy and gas, it just takes so long and there's so many liability issues that discourage investment in america versus other places. we've got lots of testimony on that, including a hearing last year, so i hope that the member of the committee will look at that legislation as one way to help get our infrastructure back on track.

>> using some additional time here, i would mention we have a deficit neutral transportation built into the resolution. and it doesn't have to be done through tax increases as this one does. >> i think i have a little bit of time left on my national remarks. this is paid for by one of the tax scandals facing this country. and that is we are losing at least $100 billion every single year. because large corporations and the wealthiest people in this country are pocketing their pockets in the cayman islands and bermuda and paying zero in federal income tax, so we should eliminate those conditions, put that money into rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and create millions of jobs. that's what this proposal does. zpl i hope that the tax reform folks that are working on this for both sides of the aisle can handle that and i think they

can. that's where the appropriate action would be for that sort of thing. senator grassley, do you have an amendment? >> this would be number one. cosponsored by senator ayotte. this will establish a spending neutral reserve fund to reform and improve and enhance 529 college savings plans. many of my colleagues an i were taken back by the president putting forward a proposal in his budget to tax 529 accounts. the president had to quickly backtrack on his proposal based on expressed concerns from across the political spectrum.

i believe the big reason it was met with disapproval is that we all know first had through communications with our constituent that is the typical family with 5.9 accounts is a family with modest means. i have some statistics on that. an average, on a national average, the average account balance is under 21,000 and for my iowans who hold 529s, the balance is lower than 18,000. i was pleased to be able to work with senator casey on a bipartisan bill that reaffirms congress' support for college savings. this bill is the basis for my amendment today. it would make three important yet very modest reforms. to 529 plans.

it would permit 529 funds to be used to put a computer as other required educational materials that can be paid for from 529. it eliminates an unnecessary aggregation rule that increases paper work and costs on plan administrators, that's the first two reasons. the third and last reason is the bill would exempt any refund tuition from income tax or the 10% penalty tax so long as the funds are redeposited in a 529 account within 60 days and if you think that that, the necessity of that would be somebody starting in september got sick in october, then if they had to drop out of school the remaining funds could be taxed and if you put them back in the 529 account, they can be -- privileges. these changes will help keep administrative costs low and

provide little extra incentive for parents to put money away for child's education. in addition to senator casey, my bill is cosponsored by throw democratic finance committee members. and four republican finance committee members. the same bill has passed the house of representatives by a vote of 41-20. so i hope my colleagues will support to send to college savings. thank you, mr. chairman. >> rebuttal. >> i think mr. chairman, senator grassley's amendment represents the first appearance in a budget mark up of something called a spending neutral reserve fund. and we had a very instructive

comment from senator king yesterday, pointing out that if you want to address the deficit, we have a considerable number of tools to do so. we can cut spending and have cut a lot of spend ng the course of the past years. we can also raise revenues by closing some smell li loopholes that are on their face, very hard to justify. we can make improvements in health care, which i think both parties have agreed is the real driver and we can make investments to grow the roads, infrastructure, better facilities, trains, all the things that a modern economy needs. by focusing on spending alone, i think we take our eye off the ball. and so, i will categorically

vote against everything that is a spending neutral reserve fund because i think it misses the picture that senator king so well laid out for us. if this were a deficit neutral reserve fund, fine. i think there are plenty of areas i think i'd support senator sessions amendment because he just made because i think these are conversations worth having even if i disagree on where the conversation might go, but when you start and say the only thing we're going look at are spending cuts, i will vote no on this. >> thank you. your side. >> yeah. >> one more. >> when we talk about the economy, there are a couple of important factors. one, the need for employment -- to create millions of jobs and number two, wages are much too low. we have many, many millions of

working people. in my state, people are working 40, 50, 60 hours a week, but their wages are so low and many don't have decent health care, they're really struggling to keep their heads above water. sadly, the federal minimum wage today pays only a little over $15,000 a year. that is nearly $1,000 below the poverty threshold for a single parent. since 1968, the real value of the federal minimum wage has fallen by close to 30%. if it had kept up with inflation since 1968, it would be worth at least 10.10 per hour today, so the amendment i'm offer sg a deficit reserve fund amendment. which substantially raises the minimum wage. and what it says to people all over this country that if you're going to work 40 hours a week or more, you are not going to live many poverty. i think as every person around this room knows, there is

widespread support for this concept. in those states where the issue has been placed on the ballot, even in conservative states, it has won overwhelmingly and what people understand is you cannot live on $15,000 a year. you can't bring up a family. you can't pay rent. you can't deal with health care, child care, if you're earning a starvation, minimum wage of seven and a quarter, so, what this amendment says to millions of working people, we understand

your struggle. we're going to help a little bit by raising the minimum wage substantially so that when you work 40 hours a week, you can live in dignity. and that's what this amendment is about. >> having been through a number of these debates now, the last time was when senator kennedy was with us and there was a raise in the minimum wage, but one of the substantial points that is always brought up is that we have higher unemployment as you mentioned underemployment, we've got a whole bunch of problems with employment right now and beginning wage is minimum wage and beginning skills is the

reason for those minimum wages. and what we need to do is increase the skills, which we've given the opportunity through the workforce investment opportunity act i've had discussions with some people who were very offended when the other side referred to their jobs as dead end jobs. i'm visiting with a person who called it that and the person next to me said i work at burger king and i have shown up on time, i know how to address customers, i've learned how to make change and i've been promoted supervise e and if i continue to do that for one more year, i'm going to get to run one of these. so we need to increase skills. we have a thing called climb wyoming in wyoming that allows single mothers to increase their job skills tremendously and get into nontraditional occupations and make a lot of money. which is the direction that i hope that we can go with improving america, is to get people into jobs that pay substantially more and get them the minimum skills so they can by pass that minimum skill position. senator sessions. >> well, supply and demand is a real factor in the world and you bring in more labor from abroad and the price of labor declines. cbo said that the bill has passed, reduced wages. and that per capita, the key per capita gdp in america would fall. so, that's one issue that i think we ought to think about,

but without the government dictating precisely what wages ought to be and i would -- thank you. >> is it possible -- >> okay, says we've got two seconds. >> i just want to indicate for the record that i think anybody who's working a full time job should not be in poverty and that's what's happening today and we're not going to grow in the economy without a middle class and that means more people working with money in their pockets. >> next amendment by senator crapo. >> thank you, i am bringing crapo amendment one, which most of the februarys of this committee are familiar with. i've brought it the last two times and it's been approved unanimously each time.

i hope we get the same result this time. this is the amendment that credit creates a point of order to -- to the crime victim's fund to being used and diverted for other purposes rather han the protection. it's one of the biggest changes in the mandatory spending programs in order tomas k our spending somewhere else by stopping this fund for being utilized for the purposes it was intended. this has $9 billion in it and congress will only allow about 730 million of those to be spent to protect victim of crime. who are we talking about? the most vulnerable. i was the republican sponsor of the violence against women act. the women and children and men who are victims of crime in their own homes are the ones being deprived of access to these funds by congress, which wants to use these funds for another purpose. these are not taxpayer dollars. these do not address or add to the debt or the deficit. instead, these are funds that are collected from perpetrators of crime and are intended to be utilized for the victims of crime. and my amendment will stop congress from what i consider, senator whitehouse mentioned smelliest loopholes. one of the smelliest is this one.

this would stop congress from engaging in this terrible practice and protect and preserve this fund. i'd like to yield the rest of my time to senator toomey. >> i thank you very much for offering this amendment and yielding to me. the it's been 15 years that congress has been taking hundred of millions of dollars that under federal law should be going to victims to some of the most horrendous crimes imaginable. and not using that money for the benefit of these victims despite the fact that the law requires this.

it's outrageous. and so, i am very enthusiastically supporting these efforts here. from 2010 through 2014, the fund collected $12 billion. not from taxpayers, but from convicted criminals and gape gave the victims only 3.6 billion of that. it's outrageous and senator crapo is exactly right. >> i would like to be added as a cosponsor and echo my colleagues comments. this money should go to victims. thank you. >> thank you. >> rebuttal? >> as senator crapo mentioned, i suspect many of my colleagues will support this amendment. but i did want to add to it that if we are serious about helping victims of crime as i'm sure all

of us are, we would not be voting for a budget that slashes funding for that program. the republican budget cuts 30 million from mandatory funding. that's a 72% cut. the crime victims fund represents 78% of total funding in this part of the budget. it would seem impossible these cuts would come from anywhere else but money intended to support victims of crime. i understand we've adopted a similar order in past debates, however, i want to make sure everyone understands that the real issue here is that this budget, the overall budget, puts this entire program at risk. i would recommend my colleagues support this amendment. >> may i be added as a

cosponsor? >> okay. >> mr. chairman, thank you. i'll offer my amendment now build on the bipartisan budget act of 2013 and extend the replacement of sequestration through fiscal years 2016 and 2017. i don't have to explain to this committee why we need to replace the senseless, automatic cuts with more reasonable savings. i know everyone agree, but democrats and republicans across the country have said that the across the board cuts to defense and nondefense are terrible policy. it's an absurd way to reduce the deficit and they need to be replaced. i know there's republicans on this committee would have been very vocal about the need to roll back the cuts and have expressed openness to raising revenue from the tax code to get this done. last year, democrats and republicans were able to reach an agreement that rolled back the worst of these automatic

cuts for 2013 and 2014 and that prevented another government shutdown. it moved us away from the constant crisis and restored education and defense and helped our economy get back on again. so, this amendment building on that deal and expedites it for two more years. it maintains the principle that democrats won't abandon, that sequestration should be replaced evenly and nondefense investments and we've replaced the automatic cuts with new revenue from closing tax loopholes, which since this budget, already contains massive spending cuts already. the principle that sequestration should be replaced with a mix of reasonable spending cuts and new revenue and finally, we had automatically release the defense and nondefense funding to the appropriations committee

that is similar to the language we passed in the previous senate budget, so i urge our colleagues to support this amendment so we can agree on responsible and realistic numbers for this year and allow the appropriations committee to do the work. >> one of the disadvantages of this process where we don't get to see amendments in advance is that they can be a little bit difficult to understand on the spur of the moment and also to have the check, not having any problems with the parliamentarian. so, i haven't been able to wade through this numbers yet. >> i'll let you look at it. i'm happy to walk you through the last budget as well. >> i'm sure you would. >> we did end a lot of the difficulties across the board.

- i don't know to what extent nondefense got relief from that, so it's not as bad as it was in the past of imposing cuts, but the sequester was part of the budget control act and after next year, spending will go up on nondefense and defense spend ing at 2.5% a year. i believe at this time of international danger, that defense department is going to have to have some relief, but it's not as if we have fervent cuts out there. the spending will begin to go up and maintain that increasing level over the next seven years, i think. >> do i have time? >> a little, yes. >> i'm out of time? >> you can have a little. >> i will just say this. if sequestration is allowed to

go into effect without replacing it responsibly as we did last time, the cuts will be devastating across the board and i think most members know that. >> mr. chairman, i just wanted to -- >> five seconds. >> support the amendment, but say there is a way to do this right and as senator grassley knows as a member of the agriculture committee, we actually cut more than sequestration in the farm bill without across the board cuts. we supported things that worked well, cut things that didn't. cut over 100 different programs, but did it i think the way the public wants us to, by evaluating each program individually. i would hope we would do away with this craziness and get back to evaluating programs for their worthiness. >> i'd like to get back to evaluating programs because i found there are 260 programs that are out of authorization that we're still spending money on. sometimes four times as much was

originally authorized and that comes to $293 billion worth of spending a year, so there are things we need to do within our budget and we shouldn't be just cutting across the board. there should be flexibility built in and we should be scrutinizing what we're doing and i don't think we've done that. one of the purposes of having a year -- a budget is so that the appropriators can get back to 2013 and make request for changes or whatever. >> which is what this amendment would allow them to do. >> time is expired on that amendment. goes to our side for senator graham. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment is not the "

amendment i'm talking to senator toomey about. that is this is the fund to be set up to help was our overseas diplomatic facilities. benghazi is an example of wish we had better security. the world is getting more dangerous by the day. i think we just closed our embassy at least temporarily in indonesia. i'm the senate of the foreign ops subcommittee on appropriations and we have put $5.4 billion in for embassy security. construction, maintenance and world side security protection. $46.4 above the budget request. we set aside 25 million as a source of funding to address emerging security requirements. this deficit neutral reserve fund would allow us to look throughout the government and try to find a bipartisan approach to put in more money in a diplomatic security, something i think we all understand we

need. and it does allow not just spending cuts, but revenue, if we can work out an agreement acceptable to all of us. god knows what's coming our way overseas and to those who are in the diplomatic core. you earn your pay as much as any member of the military. you're in dangerous circumstances and that amendment would allow us to try and make your life a little bit safer. >> rebuttal? >> mr. chairman, is the son and grandson of diplomats who served in far away place, i'd like to be added as a cosponsor of this amendment. >> without objection. senator cane the same. any other comments? back to your side. >> white house. >> all right. >> a technical amendment. everybody has in front of us these budget document.

which at some point, will have numbers in it. what it does not have is the spending that goes out through the tax code. it simply doesn't report it here. the chairman has had witnesses and the ranking member have had witnesses who on a bipartisan basis have come in and said to us that money that flows out through the tax code should be counted as spending. they use the word tax spending. but what our budget process does it is counts revenue for the basis of net revenue. so, the amount of money, $1.5 you are 1.40 trillion that goes out the back door of the tax will code and that our own witnesses on a bipartisan basis a have called tax spending never appears in our budget document in your so this is a simple amendment to add that and will information which has

been obtained from the jct and a crs and extended forward. you they can only do five years by our committee staff. exactly in line with economic growth, to add those numbers to this document, so i hope this can be a bipartisan and will can be a bipartisan and unanimous amendment. in it does nothing but add that a element of information to the will you budget development. and i believe i should add you noncontroversial factual and you will you and you will a and a information because there is

not any dispute over the accuracy of the information. if there is, we can make technical adjustments to fix it. it's just a question of disclosing the full budget picture in our dom document. >> i'm glad you added that last statement. you have determined what items are tax expenditures that ought to be eliminated and i thought that the finance committee is very concerned about their jurisdiction and whether they can stipulate those things or not. >> this is just the total, mr. chairman. if there's no determination about what should be eliminated, this is the jct information on the amount of revenue that goes through the tax code, period. there's no element of selection or distinction. it's just the jct number. what we've done is advance it for five years because we done a ten-year budget and they do five year, but we've based it on the rate of growth of economy. that's the mechanic. >> you want to explain what the exact things are that are in there? >> this is the total -- >> you say the total. we don't work in totals. we work in details in the finance committee.

>> this is the budget, which frustrates the heck of out of me. >> this is the budget committee and we do work in totals. this would disclose those totals. >> if we know where they come from. any other comments? >> i would like to learn more about this when we leave this table and for all of us who care about tax reform, it might be interesting. i look forward to talking to you about it. it might help us think a little bit down the road about how we come up with a bipartisan package to deal with our fiscal issues, so i look forward to talking to you. >> hadn't seen this until now. look forward to talking to you. >> i look forward to talking to my colleagues. there are no tricks, no traps, no gimmicks. nothing hidden under or behind the curtain. this is just getting the information that jct publishes

about the total revenue lost due to the tax loopholes and deductions as determined by jct, not some magical white house version of doing it. and then it just extends it five years forward based on economic growth consistent with our own projections. it's factual and should be in the budget. right now, we only report revenue on a net basis. >> senator portman. >> this is amendment has to do with exports. we talked about the need for more and better jobs not just to get people back to work, but dealing with this issue of flat wages. congress will say one of the best ways to do this is to expand exports.

they pay more than average wages. provide better benefits. i met with the ohio farm bureau this morning and talked about the fact that one of every three acres in ohio is now planted for export. they'd like to export more because it means better prices for them. in ohio, about 25% of our manufacturing jobs are export jobs now. we want more products made in america sent overseas and i think this is one where as a matter of the budget, we ought to be at least making a statement on the importance of exports. we missed this point sometimes as we talk about some of the specific trade agreements and the specific issues. yes, we've got to be sure imports are trading fairly. we've got to be sure people aren't selling below cost and i think we need to be tougher on that, but there's nothing inconsistent with being tough on imports, but also expanding exports more. america is exporting well below

the averages of other countries. we're somewhere between ethiopia and tonga right now. so, huge potential here for us to not just create jobs, but create better jobs. i also believe we can do more in materials of leveling the playing field on imports and in terms of dealing with the currency issue, which is an issue that does affect trade but one way to level the playing field is to open more markets to u.s. products and we're standing on the sidelines while other countries are creating marketing open agreements and that's one reason exports are not meeting the potential. that yes, we have a little playing field. >> can you speak more into the mike? can you move your mike closer when you're speaking? the table's so long. >> thank you. >> spending neutral?

>> doesn't involve taxes. >> in that case, i'm going to oppose it. but i think underlying idea is a fine one. if it were deficit neutral. >> now, i can't hear either side . >> probably be a good idea if people try to speak closer to the mike. i don't know that there's anything wrong with portman's amendment per se, but i think when we talk about exports and the need to create jobs, we are about to understand that for the last 30 years, the various trade policies we've had have done just the opposite. they have failed and in my view, when you look at the pluses and minuses, the trade policies, it turns out we've lost a hell of a lot more jobs than we've gained. we have lost 60,000 factories, not all attributable to trade, but a lot of them. while i don't have anything to senator portman's amendment per

se, i would hope if we're serious about creating exports and creating manufacturing jobs, we take a hard look at trade policy in this country over the last 30 years and the proposed p -- tpp. >> could we stipulate that spending neutral includes tax expenditures? that the term spending includes tax expenditures? >> who was that question addressed to? >> i'm just asking for those putting spending neutral proposals on the table, if we can stipulate spending includes tax expenditure, i think many would be noncontroversial. >> this question for you and your staff in terms of how you want to address that general

issue. with regard to exports, i don't think we need to get in the issue of raising taxes. the issue is being able and senator sanders is correct, we need to be stable to expand exports and i know we have a disagreement. >> why do we need to cut expenditures? >> hopefully, we don't have to. hopefully, it's going to be neutral. aren't going to increase or decrease spending. but there's no need to get into raising taxes in this area. maybe an opportunity in some other areas. but let me make one more point. how much time do i have? 29 seconds. okay. there are free policies and trade agreements where we have a trade agreement with another country, it's only 10% of the global gdp. not china, not japan, not europe. takes 47% of our exports, so

good agreements that knock down these barriers are good for american farmers, workers and service providers. >> and we'll lay that one aside so we can get an answer on tax expenditures. senator sanders. >> who was on our side. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is an amendment to create a budget against legislation that would reduce medicare outlays below the fiscal year 2014 level. in other words, a point of order if medicare is cut. in this budget. this is a big difference between the budgets we've presented, the budgets we have presented over time and republican budgets frankly and whether it's called a voucher or supports, the result is the same. that the republican budgets look to dramatic change the programs

in ways that threaten senior citizen citizen's benefits and which frankly, we have promised them and so, this would say no to those approaches. what i find also very interesting mr. chairman is that in the house, while the house has voted over 50 some times to repeal the affordable care act and take away health care exchanges in the medicare section, two pages later in the house budget, they've put in place health care exchanges for medicare. so, one might say they want obamacare medicare and change medicare to look more like obamacare, which i find a very fascinatng debate. so this is an amendment that would say we're not going to cut medicare, we're not going to

voucherize it. we're not going to provide a price support system. we're not going to cut outlays below the fiscal 2014 levels. >> in this budget, we just took the president's numbers for what to do with medicare, but we put in a provision that it should be saved for medicare itself. shift it into other programs. >> if i might just say, given the health budget, given the fact we know our desires over the years, proposal after proposal for voucher systems to change from a single payer structure where everyone knows they have health care to one where it's vouchers or price supports or whatever it's called and now, they're calling it in the house an exchange. an obamacare type exchange. all these different versions this simply says we want to keep medicare the way it is in terms

of the spending and outlays. >> senator sessions. >> colleague, we have to recall that obamacare health care bill cut medicare $500 billion. and used that money to spend on a new program. so, but as i understand, you're not proposing this budget doesn't propose any unwise reductions in medicare spending, but i just want to recall that those cuts were to providers so they said it didn't cut medicare, but it did cut money to providers in the largest amount i've seen and the history of medicare is going up, too. >> mr. chairman, if i may just

say, medicare benefits have increased as a result of health reform. there were frankly savings in areas where it was clear there was overspending and i think that's ha the public wants to see us do, but we don't want to go backwards. we want to make sure there are no cuts to medicare and strengthen benefits to our seniors. >> thank you. >> senator toomey. >> senator johnson. >> i think i have a chart that goes along with my first amendment. i think the 800 pound gorilla is that basically, two third of the

budget is not part of the discussion here. certainly one thing i found out in a 30-year career in manufacturing, knew how to solve problems and it starts with identifying, properly defining it and admitting you have a problem. what we're talking about a ten-year budget window problem and what we really have is a 30-year demographic problem. that's the result there. the 30-year deficit projected by cbo is $126 trillion. 8 trillion in the first decade which is what we're focused on. 31 trillion in the second, 81 trillion in the third. the entire net private asset base of america today is $110 trillion. what i find in washington, d.c. is a lot of delusion. when we were in the white house trying to find some areas of

agreement on our debt, i showed a similar graphic to president obama. and said, mr. president, the way you get everything on the table for discussion is you take this information, the depth of the problem. the definition of the problem to the american public. use your bully pulpit. let the public collectively admit the depth, the size, the problem. you know what he said to me? >> he said, we can't show american public numbers this big. if we do, they'll get scared. besides, we can't do all the work. we have to leave some work for future presidents, fuf congresses. that level of denial, delusion is what's really preventing us from tackling these long-term problems, so again, we are just simply denying that reality. if cbo does publish alternate fiscal scenario, they do it as a percentage of gdp. there's some scary charts and graphs.

we've asked the cbo to convert those percentage gdp to dollars. they refuse to do that, so we do it ourselves. it provides accurate information, projections based on based on good economics. hopefully, this can be a very bipartisan deal to provide information so that america collectively understands the depth of the problem and we can stop diluting ourselves in terms of what we need to be talking about is the entire budget. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman. >> i applaud senator johnson for wanting to educate the american people and i think as a nation we should not be fighting about

big numbers. i urge senator johnson to add to his discussion of economic reality, not just deficits and debts, but the reality of what's happening to the middle class and the massive level of income and welfare inequality in this country. you can't just talk about a deficit without understanding that today, 99% of all new income generated goes to the top 1%. you can't just talk about a national debt without understanding that today, the top one tenth of 1%, more wealth than the bottom 90%. so, if your goal and i share that, let's educate the american people about economic reality. let's talk about how we create jobs, raise wages, deal with the deficit, but i am concerned my republican friends don't talk about the trillions of dollars

and transfer of wealth that has gone from the middle class to the top one tenth of 1%, so if you want to include that information in your amendment, count me in as a cosponsor. >> you actually can just talk about one section and this is a pretty simple amendment. talking about cbo that projects this as a gdp. we are all concerned about america. i am highly concerned about inequality. i'm concerned about the fact that federal government doesn't have enough revenue, but the fact of the matter is, economic growth, which would come about by tax reform, regulatory relief, just from 2009 to last fiscal year, we've increased revenue by more than $900 billion and that comes from incentivizing economic behavior rather than demonizing it. we can't take a look at this as a particular piece of information that would be

helpful to the definition and admission of a problem. >> senator king. >> senator johnson, i'm all in favor of the more information, the better. i just would suggest a friendly amendment expressed in terms of dollars and as a percentage of gdp. i think a percentage is a helpful way to make the dollars comprehensible. >> i have to include that. >> thank you. >> further discussion, still about ten seconds left. okay. >> if there's ten seconds left i'll say i am all for adding

more information. i was hopeful for a moment that with all the talk about denial we might have had a breakthrough on climate change, but i guess that's for another day. >> senator sanders, to your side. >> thank you very much. >> chairman a point of order mr. chairman. has the suggestion been accepted as an amendment to senator johnson's amendment to add the gdp language or will we have to vote on that when it's time to vote? >> we can have the amendment but cbo reports this as a% of gdp. >> is this -- >> happy to include it. >> so, i'm just asking -- standpoint, where are we on the language suggested by senator king. is it in the johnson amendment now or not? >> it is not. i'll ask unanimous consent to include it. >> the author has the right to revise the amendment. >> revised. >> senator sanders. >> thank you very much. chairman enzi. senator sanders. colleagues, this is the amendment to give us the opportunity secure the protection for our public lands

and the opportunities that they present for our community. this creates a deficit neutral reserve fund for federal lands rural schools, payment in leah of taxes and the land and conservative vegas fund, each of these programs is a bonanza for rural america. they protect our public lands, water, wildlife, tourism outdoor recreation. they support local businesses and economies and so often these are the communities that say to washington, d.c., are we just going to be left out of this debate. this ensures that rural america has a presence in this budget and in the priorities that are important to us. and it's important that they be linked. for example, secure rural schools. many know that senator crapo and i have worked on this in a bipartisan way. have been linked in recent years and it is to the betterment of both of the programs. for example, last year, in

effect, it was really delinked from secure rural schools. we saw many of our rural counties wake up with less support and i think that was unfortunate. the secure rural schools program is especially important because in addition to increasing logging in a sustainable fashion, this is something else that i think can be done in a bipartisan way. we have to have a safety net where the federal government owns so much of our land and does put the trees. the reality is you cannot get logging up alone high enough to not need the safety net as well and that is why it has been so important since 2000 and senator crapo knows that senator craig and i teamed up on that. since then, there's been a large group of westerners that worked on it in a bipartisan way and i think this is amendment gives us the chance to once again link secure rural schools and payment in lieu of taxes an ensure we go to a forestry policy that increases the harvest in

sustainable fashion while at the same time, ensuring that we have the safety net that is so important for our communities. and i'll just close. i think every member of this committee understands that americans place a high value on clean water, salmon and wildlife habitat and quality of life in public lands bring. i hope this brings bipartisan support when we vote and i know a number of colleagues have worked on these issue ss in the past and i hope we can come together and support these programs through this amendment

and chairman enzi, i just yield back at this time. >> i appreciate the senator's comments about the secure rural schools and what i prefer to call payment in lieu of taxes. when we call it pilt, people don't understand that's taxes the federal government pays for land that if it were in private hands, we'd be paying taxes. and that actually affects 49 states in the united states. i'm not sure you rhode island got left out of having any federal properties that you have to pay taxes on, but that affects all of us. >> the chairman is absolutely right in terms of stressing how

important pilt is. the reason i offered this amendment, colleagues, is is that we saw when we linked secure rural schools and pilt together, both programs won. when they were denied in effect at the end of last year because of the complex way in which the formula is determined, a lot of the communities that yielded on payment saw reductions in their payments. i hope we can go back to what has successful in the past and that's part of why i offered the amendment. >> i would yield back. >> any other rebuttal? >> senator crapo. >> mr. chairman, not rebuttal. it was support. i just want to thank senator widen for this amendment and if work he does to help us deal with these problems with the secure rural schools and pilt funding. i appreciate working with him on this and hope we can pass in amendment unanimously. >> no. do we know when the vote is going to be? at noon. okay. i think we can go ahead and vote on sessions number one, sanders number one, grassley number one and sanders number two and that will give us some time to work

on the others so that we can do those after the vote. sessions number one, sanders number one. grassley number one. and sanders number two. could you also just -- raising new revenue? >> yeah, yeah, okay. if everybody's got their materials, i'll call up sessions number one. gets 30 seconds. the other side gets 30 seconds. i think i can see confusion on both sides. unless there's an objection

we'll start the votes after. and we'll have a little lunch break that includes that time of voting. hopefully, everybody can grab something to eat at that time. come back at 1:30. at 1:00, there will be a republican caucus, too. just the ones on the committee. continue with the amendment process until offering amendments until the vote's called. that will give people more time

to repair. >> yes, sir. >> 1:00. senator ayotte. we'll go back to offering. >> i'm just -- >> we're offering. there was some confusion on both sides. give people more time to prepare. yeah. >> so, i'm offering an amendment and i'm going to be making when we vote on this amendment, a revision. because it is an amendment to -- >> speak closer into the mike, please. >> this is an amendment to strengthen our civilian workforce that works on national security and military readiness

issues. my, the language that is been handed out now is a spending neutral fund. i'm going to amend that to be a standard deficit neutral reserve fund because that's what i intended in the first place and i am the chair of the readiness subcommittee in the armed services committee and the civilian workforce for example at the portsmouth naval shipyard and the civilian workforce and recruiting and retaining the very best that support our national security is very important in terms of military readiness, so this reserve fund will focus on ensuring that we're recruiting and retaining the best civilian workforce and as i understand it, senator cane, my ranking member on the readiness subcommittee, is going to speak to this amendment and cosponsor it with me. >> if i could speak to this, i asked for two changes.

first, it was originally drafted to promote the dod civilian workforce and when i asked to broaden it to our national security workforce including non-dod employee, she accepted and then i recommended we change it from a spending neutral reserve fund to a definite neutral fund, which would involve two title amendments in the body, she agreed to that as well. i think this is very positive on the readiness committee. we deal with this on armed services and it's posed to advance the work pool in this important area. >> senator warner. >> with the change to deficit neutral reserve fund, i'd like to be added as a cosponsor. >> without objection. without objection. >> i would like to be added, too. >> senator cane, also, without objection. okay. senator sanders.

>> following that broad-based support for senator ayotte's amendment, i hope to follow in the same mold. i've got an agreement with senator johnson as a cosponsor. hesitate to say anything would be a no brainer because when i hope would be viewed as such. this is simply requiring the irs to notify americans when they're the victims of identity fraud. the gao reported that the irs paid out an estimated $5.8 billion in fraudulent funds in 2013. the irs lists the top fraud schemes, but they don't tell individual taxpayers even if they know their identity's been stolen, they don't reveal that information to the individual taxpayers. we have been hoping for some time they would move on this administratively, perhaps if we

could show the whole support of the budget committee, we could get that moved forward. this clearly is getting citizens this right to have this information. you know, they could fall the irs and find out if the irs knows they've, their identity's been stolen. that should be a piece of information the sit sepulvedas should have access to. i don't know with senator johnson wants to add anything. >> we have a family in wisconsin that they were the victims of identity theft. the irs knew fully about it for years. they were not because of law simply can't be notified. this is a very good amendment and i fully support it. >> senator ayotte. >> i would like to be added as a cosponsor. my uncle went through this as

well. >> thank you. >> i, too, would like to be added as a cosponsor. >> thank you. any further comments? okay, then that goes to senator wicker on our side. >> thank you. this is wicker amendment number one. mr. chairman and it follows along the same lines as senator johnson's about getting a second and third decade of estimates. what this amendment does though is say for -- bills that have a spending effect of a quarter of a percent of gdp over the first decade, we require that the cbo give us an estimate on out into the second and third decade.

that's essentially what it does and i would think it would be a nice compliment to senator johnson's amendment. >> concerns with this amendment -- and we'll need to discuss it before the vote -- is that it is hard enough to predict what will happen ten years in the future and if anyone is smart enough to know what will be happening 20 or 30 years from now, let us know. tell us right now. we could save a whole lot of trouble. for example, i think we all know this. in 1996, cbo projected in 2000 just four years into the future at that time, the deficit would be $244 billion. in reality, the year 2000's surplus of $232 billion.

only off by $400 billion. if cbo was unable to accurately predict what will happen ten years into the future, four years into the future, four months into the future, i suspect they're going to have a hard time predicting what will happen 20 or 30 years from now. so i'm afraid that the motivation behind this amendment is to make it look like programs that help some of our most vulnerable people in this country are just outrageously expensive, and i just don't think we can project 20 or 30 years into the future. >> well, it's only difficult to predict when it's about the future. senator johnson? >> we all recognize it is difficult to projects even tomorrow. certainly with math you can provide some information. again, i'd rather have some information, even though you realize it's not 100% accurate,

but some information is better than no information. so i'm a strong supporter of what senator wicker is trying to do here as well. again, we'll take all these projections with a grain of salt, understand they're projections, but i think this is incredibly important. these programs are meant to last. ronald reagan was correct. the closest thing to eternity is a federal government program, so we should at least make some attempt to figure out what the long-term fiscal problems are with these programs. >> and do i get rebuttal? >> yes. >> you had a minute left yet. >> well, let me just say actually, senator johnson is certainly correct. as a matter of fact, there are republican and democratic members of this committee that have been working together on issues involving programs that

have a lot more effect in the out years. i would think this would actually be supported by a bipartisan majority based on the conversations that i've been having with democrats since i've been a member of the committee this term. >> used up that minute. senator sanders. >> senator baldwin, do you have an amendment? >> thank you. i'd like to call up the baldwin amendment dealing with the joint committee on taxation estimates. this is very appropriate to the discussion we're having right now about the information available to us when we review

policy and tax reform proposals. section 412 of the chairman's mark is entitled "honest accounting estimates." i believe it needs some improvements to attempt to live up to that title. the chairman's mark requires that the congressional budget office and the joint committee on taxation provide a supplementary dynamic score for certain bills. now, i have my questions about dynamic scoring. i believe that it sometimes cooks the books by making tax cuts seem cheaper than they are in reality. but i do believe that we need information and we need to look at how the proposals that are before us are affecting the rising tide of income inequality and wage stagnation that is crippling the middle class. indeed, we've heard from senators on both sides of the aisle who share this concern.

so my amendment would simply require an additional supplemental estimate that evaluates the distributional effect of revenue changes across income categories. this is an estimate that the joint committee on taxation can provide. indeed, former ways and means chairman camp requested the joint committee on taxation to do just this for his previous tax reform proposals. my amendment would simply require that. in addition, the chairman of the house and senate budget committees are able to deem what is considered major legislation, and i believe that the ranking members of both the house and senate budget committees should share in that privilege. in fact, the amendment that we just saw expands that ability to both the chair and the ranking member.

all this change allows is access to additional estimates that the chairman's mark deems honest accounting estimates. and if they're honest enough for the majority, the minority should be able to have that same access. so i urge the committee's support as we try to gather more helpful and accurate information for the policy choices we face. >> there was no intent to just keep the information for the majority, regardless of which party happens to be the chairman at the time. >> no, not keeping the information just for one side or the other, but who can deem in the underlying legislation what is major legislation that would then be able to acquire these estimates that we're talking about. >> now you're undoing the history of the budget committee with that. the chairman has always had the final word on the scoring. >> although the amendment -- the

johnson amendment, if i'm getting this correct, has the same allocation for the chairman and the ranking member. or was it the wicker one? wicker, i'm sorry. so it would follow suit. either the chairman or the ranking member of the respective committees would make that call. >> senator portman. >> thank you. i'm looking at this for the first time. because it would in effect from what you said amend the provisions in the bill that are part of the legislation that i've introduced and actually that we voted on as a committee last time we went through this process and actually took it to the floor and had democratic support and passed it by a vote of 52, which meant six or seven democrats ordered it, including members of this committee. so i need to take a look at this. i don't know that we want to change the tradition of this committee, that it's the chair and not the chair and ranking

member who ultimately is the scorekeeper here, which is what it has been through democrat and republican majorities alike. i'm happy to take a look at it. just be sure that you understand what macroeconomic scores mean to me, at least. this is not about cooking the books. this is about providing us information we badly need to come up with good tax reform. no one would tell you that tax reform is not going to have any impact on the economy.

under the score, that's essentially what it says. we may disagree at the end of the day on what the right impact is, congressional budget office, joint tax committee do this macroeconomic analysis. what the provision in this legislation provides for, which is consistent in the bill i've introduced for, is to have that information available, in addition to the score. but ultimately, the chair, as i understand, traditionally has the ability to decide, you know, what the score is going to be. so your amendment changes that. i think we'd have to take a look at it. i do think more information is a good thing. specifically, we need to know what the impact is on the economy. >> next would be senator corker. >> did you have a question? >> mr. chairman, i have a question about how we'll do side by sides or if we can. i have an amendment i want to combine. senator ayotte's amendment, which i'm supportive of on

military readiness and national security, i think it's important we pay for that. i have an amendment that deals with being able to pay for that, and i'd like to offer that as a side by side when that comes up. we'll be combining that language. i just wanted to get in the queue to offer that. >> side by sides will be allowed when we have a side by side. of course, that'll be pulled out of the voting order and put until later so the two side by sides can be -- >> so we can offer that then? >> yes. >> thank you. >> senator corker on our side. >> thank you, mr. chairman. appreciate the courtesy. this is an amendment that i hope many people will support. it will give us more information about the long-term impacts of legislation. and what it does is require cbo to produce for informational purposes only, let me underline that, for informational purposes only a 30-year score for legislation that would either

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

it's not a gotcha step. it's common sense. with that, i'll stop. >> rebuttal? >> mr. chairman. >> he still has some time left. senator sessions. >> i would just support this strongly. we've had other amendments relating to long-term liabilities. the doctor from boston university, i believe, was a very passionate witness before our committee a few weeks ago. he said, really, budget balancing numbers tend not to be fulfilled in the long run. you should judge all spending by what it does to the long-term liabilities of the united states. does it increase on it long term, unfund liabilities or reduce them? i think this is one of a number of amendments we've had today

that move us in that direction. >> mr. chairman, if i could, i'll be very brief. ron johnson is co-sponsoring this. i want to thank him for bringing into our vocabulary over the last period of time he's been serving here and senator purdue for focusing on that so much during these hearings. but our need to look at things over the long haul. again, this is for informational purposes only. thank you. >> rebuttal? senator merck lee. >> thank you. my amendment, which i'm introducing with senator widen would create a deficit neutral reserve fund to reduce the cost of attending institutions of higher education with the goal of students graduating and doing so with less of a debt burden. an affordable path to higher education is a key pillar for a strong middle class, but today an increasing number of students

are graduating with substantial debt when they start their working lives. indeed, two-thirds of our college seniors who graduate with debt, and their average debt will be about $26,000 to $27,000. many, obviously, have much higher individual debt burdens. we know that the sky-rocketing student loan debt is hurting our economy. the total amount of debt is now surpassing the credit card debt. 40% of graduates with college loans are delaying making major purchases such as a car. the rate of homeownership by college graduates is declining. and more and more students are wrestling with whether they should attend college because of that debt load they will carry with them as a mill stone around their neck. that is not the doors of opportunity which we want to open wide. that is the doors of opportunity closing on our students of modest means. by 2020, our economy will have a deficit of 5 million college-educated workers. by 2020, 60% of all jobs will require education beyond college. both for the sense of

opportunity in our nation and for our future economy, college needs to be more affordable. that's why i'm asking for support for this amendment. >> the budget resolution doesn't make any changes to the outstanding student loans and won't prevent anyone from getting a federal student loan who's currently eligible to receive one. so we're just trying to rein in the rising cost of college costs and rising debt. i'll keep my remarks brief. any other -- senator purdue? >> this amendment will create a spending neutral reserve fund aimed at subjecting consumer financial protection bureau to the regular appropriation process. while republicans and democrats may differ -- have different feelings about the cfpb, making them a part of the appropriation process should be a nonpartisan issue. right now the cfpb's funding does not come from congress. it comes from transfers from the federal reserve. dodd-frank established the budget as much as 12% of the

fed's annual operating expense. this is roughly 600 million without any congressional oversight. congressional oversight, in my opinion, of this agency should be a constitutional function. this agency has already proven it's not a good steward of expenses. a prime example is the cost overruns of the renovation of the cfpb headquarters currently. the federal reserve inspector general just estimated $120 million cost overrun of that renovation. current estimates put the renovation at $600 per foot. according to the house financial services committee. that is more per square foot than it costs to build the bellagio casino at 330. mr. chairman, i enter it in for consideration and at the appropriate time. thank you. >> mr. chairman? >> senator sanders. >> i speak in opposition to this amendment. no other bank regulation agency is subjected to regular appropriations subjecting the cfpb to appropriations it just one way of singling out the one regulator which by statute is a consumer advocate and this amendment would weaken a very,

very important agency. the cfpb has been successful. it is working. it has helped some 15 million consumers who will receive relief from unsafe financial services, products. it has ordered $5.3 billion in consumer relief. if you want to continue to protect consumers, i would urge a no vote on this amendment. >> mr. chairman? can i be recognized to say a brief comment about this amendment? >> senator toomey. >> i'd like to ask unanimous consent to be entered as a co-sponsor. i think the senator from georgia is correct. the cfpb is completely unaccountable. there's no accountability to congress. it has exceeded its authority, in part because it's not subject to congressional oversight, and it's frankly outrageous that they're able to operate with a budget that they have and the

latitude they have without having to come to congress for this oversight. so i thank the gentleman from georgia for offering the amendment. i join him. >> i think senator kaine has an amendment to offer. >> i do, mr. chair. i will be brief. i believe it has some good solid bipartisan support. two of my colleagues here on this committee, senators baldwin and portman, are together with me, the co-chairs of the senate career and technical education caucus. this amendment is a deficit knew ral reserve fund to support legislation encouraging more cte innovation to prepare students for the 21st century work force. i'm the son of an iron worker, and i ran a technical school in honduras for a year and learned there. since the power of cte, it was kind of put into the shadows of american public education for a number of decades, but now it's back strong.