ms. stabenow: a little rebuttal to my friend from pennsylvania. we had a finance committee a number of days ago where we asked the republican and the democratic witnesses, do tax cuts pay for themselves? everyone said no. and there is no evidence in history of this. there just isn't. it sounds great. i wish it really did happen. but what we have seen in the history of our country is deficits as a result of doing tax cuts. particularly supply-side tax cuts. that don't go into the pockets of middle class families or small businesses or companies that are making things here in america. therefore it doesn't turn around in the economy. so that leads to an amendment that i have that would create a budget point of order against any legislation that would give a tax cut to companies that in fact are shipping our jobs overseas. i know that we do business around the world.

we have companies that do business around the world. but we have seen over and over again companies that close up shop to take basically a race to the bottom on wages and ship jobs overseas. i don't think we should be helping or rewarding them for doing that. i'm all for tax cuts for middle class families here, small businesses, companies that are creating good paying american jobs. i think that if we really want to do tax reform, we should be closing the loopholes that in fact are incentivizing or allowing companies both not to contribute their fair share, but also to benefit from a tax code that allows them to ship jobs overseas with no penalty. i think we should all agree hat we want tax reform for companies that are creating jobs here in america and the 50,000 americans who had their

jobs sent overseas last year should not have to pay the cost through their tax bill of giving companies big tax cuts who are in fact shipping their jobs overseas. > further discussion in favor. if not, i'll speak on this one because this amendment creates a point of order against legislation by another committee that lowers the taxes for certain companies. the budget resolution's reconciliation instruction to the finance committee does not specify the policies or the provisions that would be reported out of that committee. they did release their tax reform framework last week. i wish they wouldn't have. because there's a whole process that they have to go after we finish. ensens not before we finish -- mr. enzi: not before we finish.

they're working on it, they're inviting a bipartisan procedure on it. i'm hoping that that works out. but the framework includes international tax reform that would incentivize companies to invest domestically and create jobs in the united states and put them in a position where it would be more valuable for them to work in the united states than it is to go overseas. one of the reasons we have people buying up companies in the united states is they don't have to pay the same kind of foreign tax and that gives them about a 30% advance of -- advantage of buying up an american company than an american company buying up an american company. so the reconciliation resolution empowers the senate finance committee to draft tax reform legislation that will contribute to strong, durable economic growth and allow many of our constituents to join and remain in the work force so as to participate in the american dream. it doesn't specify how to do that. and anything that's been put

out so far is not the final bill either. that will be in committee and we'll have a chance to work on it there. many of us on this committee are on that committee as well. creation of this point of order is outside the jurisdiction of the budget committee and therefore is not appropriate for inclusion in a budget resolution. it exceeds our jurisdiction and threatens the privilege of the resolution. so it won't be in order. my time has expired so this will be laid aside. or a later vote. senator king. mr. king: thank you to the chair. i am pulling up, it's committee 129, kaine amendment 2. this is designed to save us some embarrassment. mr. mccain: i really believe. for -- mr. kaine: i really believe. for those who haven't memorized it, on page 80, section 4111 is this innocuous provision. it says repeal of certain

limitations, section 3205, 3206, 114th congress, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2016 are repealed. that's what it says. hm. sounds innocuous. sounds technical. you go to it and what it's repealing is the requirement, the previous requirement that a c.b.o. score be posted online 28 hours in advance of voting on any legislation coming out of reconciliation. why would we want to take away the posting online of a c.b.o. score? why would we not want to know what the c.b.o. says about something before we would vote? why would we not want the public to know what the c.b.o. says about something before we would vote? i would ask consent to add senators warner, cane, wyden andujars i as co-sponsors on this. this would extend it to include amendments in the nature of a substitute. no just any amendment, but that if there's an amendment in the nature of a substitute that that's -- that's dropped on the floor or dropped in a committee, there's got to be a

28-hour posting of a c.b.o. score we have to vote on it. common sense would save from us embarrassment. good for the institution. i'd like to ask for this harfiss she'd like to weigh in -- harris if she'd like to weigh. in mr. harris: thank you. i'm co-sponsoring this -- mr. harris: harris thank you. i'm co-sponsored -- ms. harris: thank you. i'm co-sponsoring this because the senate has a fundamental duty. the republican congress in 2015 agreed to that waiting period. between the c.b.o.'s official cost estimate and a vote. they agreed that it was the right thing to do. it remains the right thing to do. this time provides our offices across the aisle with the chance to grapple with the consequences of a bill before deciding how to vote. and that period has proven valuable even just recently. that is what allowed lawmakers to realize that the so-called skinny repeal of the affordable care act should not pass. because it would have kicked 16 million people off of their health insurance.

we are elected to do the work of the people. we are elected to do the work in the trust, with the people's trust in mind. and it is only responsible that we would do all due diligence before voting on any policy, to know the impact it is going to have on the real people who are out there expecting and hoping every day that we have them in mind when we make these decisions. thank you. mr. sanders: i eagerly await the republican response as to why the american people should not know the implications and the consequences of their legislation. and why for the first time c.b.o. should not be allowed to issue a report analyzing what is in the bill. ensens thank you. i'm eager to re-- ensens thank you -- mr. enzi: thank you. i'm eager to respond to that. the budget act itself empowers the committee chair as score keeper. in that role i have always and will always appreciate the estimates and pander that the congressional budget office

provides. indiana fact since becoming the chairman in 2015, the budget committee has always discharged its responsibilities with scores in hand. as well it's important to know that a budget resolution is not a law. what we're doing today is not a law. and because it's not a law, it can't supersede or replace any statutory provisions. the congressional budget act is a law and it established the congressional budget office and provides the rules that the office must follow when estimating the impacts of proposed legislation. the proposed amendment attempts to make a significant change to section 402 of the budget act, which should only be accomplished by regular order of legislation which the president signed. and i hope that we do some budget reform things so that this can be a more effective committee and that would be an appropriate time to do that. but our resolution doesn't strike an experimental requirement that c.b.o. estimates be available at least 28 hours before final senate

consideration. it did not function effectively, for this did we find the need to tfer employ it. so -- to ever employ it. not ask my colleagues to vote for it. there's still some time available if somebody wants to speak. 1 seconds. the amendment will be set aside. or later vote. ms. warren: thank you, mr. chairman. -- ms. werner: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to bring up -- >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would hope that at some point we or maybe somebody from the press will go back and look

back when the democrats were in majority and all of these exact rguments around the importance of keeping the deficit under control. mr. warner: deficit neutral, financial guard rails, read the bill before you vote on the bill. were all absolutely made by members of this committee who then sat in the minority. sometimes people i think wonder why we can't get stuff done, if we would at least all adhere to what we said in prior times and the same perhaps could be said for us. in that sense, my amendment is based again on the use of the c.b.o. as legislators we often disagree about policy goals. and desired outcomes. but we always have agreed on a common set of referees. and we've long agreed that the nonpartisan experts from the joint committee on taxation and

the congressional budget office should tell us how much piece of legislation -- a piece of legislation costs. that we shouldn't go to the executive branch or some third party think tank. i don't believe we should look around for alternative facts. even though alternative facts seem to be popular these days. this amendment, and i know the chairman has the ability to use or choose whatever methodology, but this would require the estimates of budgetary effects for legislation provided -- be prepared using the c.b.o. baseline, prepared under the balanced budget act and emergency deficit control active 1985. the c.b.o. baseline conforms to the principles that we have defined in law, changing the baseline could mask the truth and the cost, the real cost of a tax bill. i ask that my colleagues vote in favor of this amendment and would remind them of many of them citing the c.b.o. as a useful tool in previous

arguments when the majorities were reversed. mr. enzi: further comment in favor. seeing none, two minutes in opposition. senator grassley. grass grass this amendment would -- mr. grassley: this amendment would strip the chairman of this committee of his ability to determine the budgetary effects of legislation. so obviously i would urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. this amendment takes away the power from the budget committee chairman, elected member of this body, to determine the budgetary effects of legislation. instead the amendment places the chairman's score keeping authority with the congressional budget office. c.b.o.'s work is very, very important. we all review its work carefully. we all appreciate the staff's hard work. that being said, the law is very clear.

section 312 of the budget act states that enforcement -- enforceable budgetary levels, quote, shall be determined on the basis of estimates made by the committee on the budget. that then is the responsibility of the law placed in the hands of the committee is no accident. the chairman is accountable to the people of the state that elected him, to his colleagues in the way that we approve ongressional chairmen, and it's that accountability that ensures that whoever is chairman takes responsibility seriously and behaves appropriately. therefore in the name of accountability and in defense of the budget act i oppose this amendment. i urge my colleagues to to do -- to do the same.

mr. enzi: further comments? that amendment will be set aside for later vote. next one is warrener -- warner number two. mr. warner: imagine when i get greeted with the same response on this one. but this one i'm actually very anxious to hear the rebuttal against. because this committee has put in place a series of fiscal guard rails over the years to prevent congress from enacting legislation that dramatically increases our deficit and debt. one such guard rail that, again, many members of the majority use to rail against budgets that were proposed during the last administration, and as someone who spent a lot of time trying to wrestle with our debt and deficit, i know it's a challenging guard rail but i think a good one. and that guard rail is called pay as you go. or pay-go. a rule which dictates that any tax cut be paid for with corresponding tax increases or

cuts in mandatory spending. unfortunately this budget exements tax reform legislation -- exempts tax reform legislation from pay go. especially essentially saying we're not going to pay for tax cuts. additionally this budget exempts tax legislation from a point of order established back in 2010 which prevents legislation from dramatically increasing short-term deficits. if there's one thing that i think all economists are clear on, left, right, center, middle, you name it, tax cuts paid for through deficit spending is a really, really bad idea. and, again, i would like -- i should have done a little more research and been able to quote many of the members in the majority who made that point repeatedly from 2008 through 2016. studies show that tax cuts that add to the deficits are worse for growth over the long run than those that are paid for and can actually reduce growth

over time. so, any law make who are votes against this amendment and says they support not paying for tax cuts should also have to explain why adding to our national debt is a good idea. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. enzi: others speaking in favor. all time is yielded back then. speaking in opposition, senator strange. mr. strange: thank you, mr. chairman. if this committee is serious about providing a framework for delivering real tax relief to the american people, i have to urge my colleagues not to support this amendment. if we're really serious about producing a pro-growth package, which i think we are, the only way to get there is to allow for a static loss in revenue and allow for increased economic growth that would follow to drive higher revenues. by striking our bill to adjust senate pay-go, this amendment would tight hands of the committee in adjusting budget rules. after allering budget rules alone do not provide for the kind of economic drivers that comprehensive tax relief would

include. budget rules also do not accommodate the tax extenders. many of which enjoy bipartisan support. that cover the $460 billion gap between current law and policy baselines. this amendment goes even further by striking our ability to waive short-term deficit points of order. essentially admitting that it does not intend to facilitate the tax relief our constituents, my constituents in alabama, so desperately need. getting any meaningful relief across the finish line or working -- for working americans will also require adjustments to the budget. this is a goal we all support. each of these pieces of tax relief is a reason to support adjusting budget rules. they are a litmus test for how committed to economic growth we actually are. i look forward to the senate finance committee beginning its work into our colleagues offering amendments and participating in that process. again, i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. mr. enzi: further comments?

that will be set aside. xt will be van hollen number three. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. again, we've heard that the two top priorities for tax reform are, number one, to provide middle class families with some relief. and number two, to make our tax code as competitive as possible. eliminating the estate tax for the richest families in the country accomplishes neither of those goals. i just want to give people a sense, i don't know if we have the chart up there, about what this does. but only two out of 1,000 estates, two in 1,000 estate, people who are paying estate, only two currently pay any egstate tax and that's because for individuals, estate tax doesn't kick in until $5.6

million and for couples it's around d 11 million. any estate below those levels is entirely exempt. you don't pay a penny in estate tax. and yet this budget and the tax proposal would propose increasing the debt by $240 billion over 10 years, or cutting medicare and medicaid. i heard the chairman say we don't have enough revenue for those things. well, if you take away $240 billion for two out of every 1,000 estates, you will not have enough money to meet our other priorities. so bloomberg looked at this and, you know, the types of folks who benefit are like the walton family. they'll save tens of billions of dollars. according to bloomberg, and i believe that's a trusted source for the majority of the members of this kerks they say the he is -- this committee, they say

the estate tax would save donald trump's estate up to $2 billion. the $2 billion is if you take the president's word at what he says is his fortune. the point is, whether it's president trump or other incredibly wealthy american families, we're giving them a windfall. i would just say that teddy roosevelt would be crawling in his grave on this. i would submit a quote from teddy roosevelt who essentially said that we don't want to create an aristocracy in america. we don't want to create a permanent dynasty in america. and yet that's what this republican proposal would do. and so let's make it clear this doesn't help the middle class, it's not going to help economic growth. it's only going to add to the debt and deficit. so let's just tell the american people that we're not going to provide this giveaway at a time when we're also talking about

cutting significantly from education and other important investments in our future. mr. enzi: the gentleman's time has expired. opposition? mr. gardner: thank you, mr. chairman. i oppose the amendment. uncle sam has you coming and going in the united states. they tax you when you're going out of life, they tax you when you're in life. and this is one of the most unfair tax principles that we could be addressing and dealing with here. i don't think farmers and ranchers in colorado or any of our states think they're part of an aristocracy. in fact, they're dirt rich and cash poor. it's a big challenge that we face. if you live in western areas of colorado and you're blessed to live in the veil valley or perhaps over by aspen, you have some incredible heritage that you are proud to be a part of. maybe you've had that land in your family for over 100 years. all of a sudden that land goes up in value. and guess what happens. people are made -- have to make a choice. do they keep the operation? do they decide to subdivide it? do they decide to sell it? do they decide to turn what

once was open space into 36 acre mansion? the choice is pretty clear. 62% of farm land today, crop land, is higher in value than it was -- excuse me, values are 62% higher today, crop land, than it was a decade ago. these are people with illiquid assets that have a chance of breaking up their farm or ranch. i think that if we're going to have good tax policy in this country, we need to move forward with our budget resolution. so that we can set a path for middle class tax relief. if we pass this bill, we move forward to a tax policy that actually provides opportunities for middle income families in america, we will see an opportunity to keep american jobs here, to keep american profits here instead of overseas, and median household income will increase by $4,000. that's the plan we have before us. i hope it gets bipartisan support. but it doesn't start by death taxes. it doesn't start by unfair taxes that uncle sam says, hey, just because you die, it's a taxable event. i think most people in this

country disagree with that. mr. van hollen: i think if you look at the chart you see that's not the middle class. mr. enzi: all time has expired. that will be set aside for a record vote at a later time. before we turn to the next amendment, i want to update colleagues on how we have agreed to proceed. we'll continue to have amendments called up, debated and laid aside until we break at 1:30. at 1:30, grab some lunch, do a roll call vote on the senate floor, and then we'll reconvene at 2:30 and continue to offer amendments for debate. my staff is working with the ranking member's staff and would expect that we'll begin a series of stacked votes right around 3:15 p.m. so please make sure your schedulers are aware that votes will begin on amendments offered up to that point by around 3:15 this afternoon. following that series of votes, we'll resume consideration, if

there are other amendments that we haven't gotten done. with that plan to complete that round of amendments and arrange another stack and then hopefully be in a position to do final passage. the next amendment is kaine number four. mr. mccain: kaine number four which -- mr. mccain: kaine -- mr. kaine: kaine number four is on page 50. it's a one paragraph section in the mark. the chairman's mark says that this establishes a deficit-neutral reserve fund to allow for later adjustments in the budget to accommodate fast-track tax cut legislation passed pursuant to this reconciliation. the designation is deficit neutral, however, could, doesn't automatically, but it could pave the way for achieving deficit neutrality by dropping tax revenues and then dramatically cutting all kinds of other programs. so my proposal is really simple. this whole process is about tax

reform. that's what it's about. so let's, instead of saying that it has to be deficit neutral, let's say that at a minimum it has to be revenue neutral. and that way we're not achieving the neutrality by cutting taxes and then massively cutting expenses. so what i do is really simple. it just changes the deficit neutrality requirement to a requirement that the legislation would at least be revenue neutral over the period of the fiscal years 2018 hrough 2027. mr. enzi: further comments in favor? two minutes of opposition, then. mr. toomey: thank you, mr. chairman. i think that the problem with this amendment is that it could have -- first of all, i think it's unnecessary and, secondly, i think it could have unintended adverse consequences. so, first of all, it lists social security as something

that can't be cut. but that's already budget law. that would automatically lose reconciliation protection. if subsquebt tax reform -- subsequent tax reform touched social security. medicare and medicaid, this isn't health care reform. this is tax reform that we're trying to do. and here's one of my concerns about the unintended -- i assume unintended consequences of this amendment. if it were to be enacted. my understanding for technical reasons that frankly are pretty complicated, my understanding is that if we made this change, it might preclude the tax reform, including refundable tax credits, like refundable child tax credits. because that's an expenditure. i think that requires us to use the word deficit in this context. we don't want to preclude the possibility of increasing refundable child tax credits. that is probably an important part of the middle class working family tax relief that we want to provide. a second thing is, i think it would preclude us from taking

into account the fact that stronger economic growth by itself will tend to diminish certainly medicaid. right? if you made no changes whatsoever to medicaid, available funding, eligibility rules, reimbursement rules or anything else, just a stronger economy with more jobs and higher wages might mean fewer people we need to be on medicaid. and that is something that you ought to be able to take into account. i'm afraid that this amendment could get in the way of both of those items and so i would urge pposition, mr. chairman. ensens -- mr. enzi: ok. that amendment will be set aside for a later vote. next is senator sanders. number 25. mr. sanders: mr. chairman, i filed an amendment. i ask unanimous consent that senator merkley be listed as the primary sponsor of that amendment. that i be listed as a co-sponsor. and that senator merkley be

recognized to aufert amendment. mr. enzi: without objection. mr. merkley: i thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment would create a deficit neutral reserve fund for legislation that would create jobs by investing $1 trillion to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure paid for by closing tax loopholes that incentivize corporations to ship jobs overseas. this supports two of the goals that president trump has often advocated for. rebuilding america's infrastructure and keeping american manufacturing jobs in america. therefore it merits the support of every member of this committee. mr. enzi: further comments in support?

in that case, i would say that this amendment would create a deficit neutral reserve fund to increase spending on infrastructure projects offset by unspecified tax increases. that's the job of another committee. both committees, i believe. the majority of my colleagues in the senate are interested in enhancing america's infrastructure. the according to world economic forum, the united states ranks 12th in overall infrastructure. our roads are congested, our water systems are failing. and we have tens of thousands of bridges that are structurally deficient. two years ago congress and the previous administration agreed upon a multiyear transportation initiative that received resounding bipartisan support from both chambers. now the new administration is exploring additional efforts on infrastructure and transportation, which will involve all stakeholders. on transportation we should neither forego our prior commitments for this preempt those new conversations with

this amendment. we must address these issues in a logical, fiscally responsible manner, which is why the budget resolution includes two separate deficit neutral reserve funds to both improve our nation's infrastructure and reform our tax code. i believe these issues should be dealt with separately. the tax reform ideas contained in this amendment may have merit, but they should be dealt with in the context of tax reform instead of specific ac -- offsets to infrastructure and transportation spending. these tax policies are unrelated to transportation and infrastructure spending and move even further away from the user-pay principle which has been used to provide dedicated revenues for surface transportation projects. we always kept that separate. we had separate taxes for. it our tax code's overcomplicated, inefficient and archaic. the current structure hurts economic growth, frustrates american workers, and pushes

american businesses overseas. the budget resolution assumes that the tax writing committees will adopt a tax reform proposal that reduces marginal rates, but broadens the tax twice create a fairer, efficient, competitive, pro-growth tax scene that is revenue-neutral. i look forward to their work. for these reasons i would urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. that amendment has been set aside. merkley number two. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment would create a point of order against legislation that would allow that decrease -- i'll try again. mr. chairman, this amendment would create a point of order against legislation that allows for decrease of taxes on citizens earning over $1 million per year. a condition that is only there for the wealthiest, very wealthiest americans. speaking of which, the top 1% in the republican tax plan ould see an average tax cut up

$200,000 apiece. and for the top .1%, it would be over $1 million per person. but an average family with children would see their taxable income -- their taxes increase by thousands of dollars. we don't want to be in this position, do we? in which we're basically making life harder for the middle class while giving away the national treasury and increasing the deficit for the very richest americans? thus we should all be united in promoting and supporting this amendment. mr. enzi: further comments in favor? seeing none, i'll begin the two minutes of opposition. creation of such a point of order is outside the jurisdiction of the budget committee. it is therefore not appropriate for inclusion in the budget resolution. language that exceeds

jurisdiction threatens the privilege of the resolution and is not in order. as the committee knows, the budget resolution provides broad outlines for congressional budgeting. and allows our committees the power to craft detailed legislation to carry out their goals. this resolution distribute resolution empowers the finance committee to move legislation that would significantly enhance our country's economic growth, create circumstances for a durable economy that supports the ability of americans to work, save and plan for the future, while keeping america's premier role as the leading economy of the world. this point of order would constrict the ability of the finance committee to fully explore and propose changes to underlying law, to accomplish our goals on behalf of all americans. it prejudges the outcome of the finance committee's work and it ultimately handcuffs the entire senate once the committee completes action. any other comments?

seeing none, that amendment is laid aside. next amendment is stabenow number eight. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. chairman. i would hope this would be an amendment that we could all support. given the comments from colleagues that the cut in the budget resolution on medicare isn't really a cut. so, if that's the case, then i think we should be very clear that structurally medicare won't be changed, with the almost $500 billion in cuts in the budget resolution. and this would simply put a budget point of order against medicare privatization. which i know is a great worry to seniors in michigan and people across the country. 47 million americans, mostly seniors, but people with disabilities, depend on medicare. including two million people in michigan. that's about one in five people in our country. medicare's a promise.

it's a guarantee that america's seniors who paid in their whole lives, people have paid in their whole lives have affordable, comprehensive insurance when they retire. a lot of folks holding on just -- having a tough time in terms of insurance and they breathe a sigh of relief when they're 65, to know that what they paid into all their life will be there. colleague have said this is not a cut. if that's the case then we should say to seniors we will the pport changing structure of medicare. whether you call it a voucher, price support, the result is the

same. we hear from republican colleagues proposals to dramatically change the program in a way that threatens seniors' benefit, benefits they have earned. so if we're trying to improve upon the medicare program and reduets costs, the first thing someone should not want to do is reduce coverage for seniors. to take away the security this program presents for seniors and families who love and care for them. dollar lot of other ways we can reduce costs, mr. chairman, but why don't we start by medicare negotiating prescription drug prices. that would be a great way, it wouldn't hurt senior, it would help them. right now, in this bill, we have an unspecified cut to medicare of $473 billion. as we talked about before, huge tax cuts to the top 1%. 80% of all the tax cuts being proposed to the top 1%. d a threat to seniors of a

restructuring of their health care program that they have been counting on. so i would hope this is a simple amendment that we should not restructure or create vouchers under medicare with this budget resolution. thank you. mr. enzi: this amendment of course is not in order because it create ats point of order against legislation in another committee. the amendment specifically prohibits the consideration of any bill in the senate which would include that committee that has the jurisdiction that we don't have. we have now seen this amendment filed in many different forms but every single version was formed with politics in mind. my democrat colleagues want to try to find a clever way to make the false accusation that somehow through this budget senate republicans are cutting medicare. let me be clear. the budget we have put forward

does not cut medicare. medicare spending increases every year. we only slow its rate of growth potentially if the committee of jurisdiction chooses to do that. under the resolution, medicare spending increases every year, growing at an average rate of 6%, increasing a total of 82% other the 10-year window. our budget does not cut medicare. it slows the rate of greth, the committee of jurisdiction chooses to do that. under c.b.o.'s baseline, medicare spending averages 7%. the creation of the proposed point of order is outside the jurisdiction of the budget committee and it's not appropriate for inclusion in a budget resolution. language that exceeds our jurisdiction threatens the privilege of the resolution and isn't in order. senator johnson. mr. johnson: this is about not changing the structure of medicare. let me talk about the structure of medicare.

the -- according to the urban institute, for every $1 paid in, $3 will be paid out. the deficit in medicare will be $39 trillion. that's a big chunk of the over $100 trillion 30-year deficit. this is unsustainable resm deucing the rate of growth a modest amount just begins to address the enormous challenge we have with our fiscal challenge. so again, the structure of medicaid -- medicare is simply unsustainable. ms. shab now: mr. chairman if i can say, we can come together and say we're not going to privatize medicare as part of this process and secondly, if you believe those numbers we ought to be putting dollars in to keep the promise to seniors and medicare instead of a tax cut to the top 1%. mr. enzi: that amendment will be set aside and voted on later. next one is wyden number 10. mr.wide n: thank you. -- mr. wyden: thank you. the budget has a repeal or he

re-place affordable care act and this amendment would strike that reserve fund. and the american people have seen this bad movie before. and they don't like it. and yet it keeps coming back this is the latest effort to take away affordable health care from the american people. i see my colleague here, senator graham who i like very much, he was a co-sponsor of my bipartisan health reform bill. look at what happened at the last hearing. senator cassidy came in, not senator graham, but senator cassidy said we're going to protect people with pre-existing conditions. all the experts said, no, you're not. those costs for those people are going to go up. senator cassidy said, no, they're going to get help. i said let's turn to the cancer society. these are the people with the facts. they looked right at senator cassidy and said no, senator,

you're not protecting people with pre-existing conditions. so it seems to me that we ought to be saying no to slashing medicaid, no to an age tax, no to an approach that will hurt people with pre-existing conditions and go back to kind of bipartisan sort of effort like we saw in the previous congress that senator graham and i were part of. we know there are member here who want to work in a bipartisan way. if all you're saying is we're going back to repealing and replacing the affordable care act, it is the same bad movie we have seen. people do not like it. and i would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. . enzi: speak in fare of the amendment? you have -- in favor of the amendment. you have one minute and seven seconds. >> i'll hold off. senator graham is going to talk, he'll, i'm sure, require a

response. mr. enzi: senator graham. mr. graham: the reason we're talking about affordable health care and flexibility is because obamacare is not working. if it were working there would be no graham-cassidy. if it were working we would not be down to one exchange in south carolina after starting with five. if it were working you wouldn't have a 31% increase in premiums announced last week. this is not working. and i have seen no effort on the other side to do anything but to tinker wit my goal is to repeal and replace by taking basically the same amount of money and giving it back to the states in a fair way. they got to spend it on health care. you do cover pre-existing illnesses. i nope hope there's many different ways to deal with pre-existing illnesses, not one. i can tell you right now obamacare is going to fail. somebody needs to do something about it. if you take this account out of the budget, it destroys the ability to come up with flexible

alternatives to obamacare which cannot be fixed. it needs to be replaced. maybe bipartisanship will break out. but i do know this. if you take, if you pass his amendment, any efforts to have flexible, affordable health care will be lost. at a time when we need them ore, not less. >> senator graham and i know how important it is to be bipartisan. this doesn't do that. for example, c.b.o., with respect to graham-cassidy, at least what they called they snapshot said it would cut medicaid $1 trillion over 10 years. let's remember who gets medicaid. four out of 10 seniors a big part of the medicaid program essentially covers older people

who need nursing home care. mr. wyden: a substantial position of seniors end up needing medicare to cover their nursing home bill. you cut $1 trillion out of medicaid, you're going to have a lot of older people and their families not being in a position to afford care. that's what the budget office says. i suspect my colleague is going to say he doesn't agree with the budget office and that's his right but that's what our independent arbiter says is, would cut, the graham-cassidy bill which i think would be the next effort in repeal and replace, it would cut $1 trillion for the services that we need for people. mr. graham: there's two parts to graham-cassidy, medicaid reform because it's unsustainable. by 2027 we'll be spending more on medicaid than the department of defense. medicaid is growing about twice the race of every other program in the country. if you want to preserve medicare, reform it before it takes the entire federal budget

down wit. when you take medicare and medicaid combined, that's all the revenue will be spent on those two brames 2040. when it comes to obamacare dollars it doesn't give 35% of the -- 35% of the money to poor states, it does it in an even fashion. you take the block grant from obamacare and apply it to medicaid. i oppose this amendment because it destroys creativity. r. enzi: all time has expired. >> by my clock i think senator wyden had 7 1/2 seconds left. mr. enzi: i think you used it. next amendment, sanders number 34. mr. sanders: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this amendment establishing a -- establishes a deficit neutral reserve fund to allow for a constitutional amendment to overturn citizens united and reform our broken

campaign finance system by moving toward the public funding of elections. mr. chairman, in my view, the republican budget we're discussing today is patently absurd. it gives massive, massive tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country. it makes horrific cuts to medicare and medicaid. it forces about 30% of middle class families to pay more in taxes. and it also allows for massive cuts to education, nutrition, and environmental protection. now, why would anybody want to like proposal a budget this? i think it has a lot to do with an article that appeared on june 26 in the guard -- in "the guardian" newspaper. let me quote the article. quote, at a weekend donor are-treat attended by at least

18 elected official the koch brothers washed that time is running out to push their agenda most notably, health care and tax reform, through congress. one texas-based donor warned republican lawmakers that his dallas piggy bank was closed until he saw legislative progress. get obamacare repealed and replaced, get tax reform passed, get it done and we'll open it back up. nonetheless, koch officials said the network's mid-term budget for policy and politics is between $300 million and $400 million. a few minutes ago we talked about the estate tax and in my view the absurdity of giving tax breaks of tens and tens of billions of dollars to the walton family, the koch brothers family, adeleson's family, donald trump's fall -- family. it might be interesting to note

that five of the richest families in this country stand to save almost $135 billion if the estate tax were repealed. and guess what? surprise, surprise, these very same families poured huge amounts of money into campaign contributions and other mechanisms to see that the estate tax is repealed. including $3.4 million -- excuse me, since 199 , the walton, koch and devos families have given at least $50 million to groups that fight for the reversal of the estate tax and for other tax breaks that go to the rich. we need fundamental reform of a corrupt campaign finance system. billionaires should not be allowed to buy the political process in the united states. i would ask support for this mendment to move us forward.

mr. enzi: senator grassley. mr. grassley: senator sanders is going to laugh at me for opposing the amendment, because there are more sanders t-shirts than grassley t-shirts at my rallies. i'm going to oppose this amendment. this amendment is an attack on freedom of speech as guaranteed by the first amendment and reaffirmed in the famous supreme court case citizens united. here's what i want to challenge senator sanders with. we have this joel goura, law professor, campaign finance law expert and longtime lawyer for the american civil liberties union told "the times" that it was, quote, a great day for the first amendment because the citizens united ruling checked the chilling effect on free speech caused by, quote, again,

quoting, our incredibly complex system of campaign finance rules -- about ions about who can speak and what can be said and when it can be said presided over by government bureaucrats. the protections of the first amendment have long been extended beyond isolated individuals to groups and associations. the senate budget committee, now this is more appropriate for this hearing, the senate budget committee is not the venue to work through all the complexities of federal campaign finance laws, that's the senate rules committee. i believe that in the event the rules committee were to report legislation in this area, then it would require regular order on the senate floor. our constitution requires no less, that's why i urge support against the amendment.

mr. sanders spks is there more time? mr. enzi: three seconds. that will be set aside, kaine this one mr. kaine: pertains to page 78, it's verying very simple. the mark basically says, as it needs to, that there's adjustment authority given to the committee chair if there are amendments made pursuant to this that require amendments to the statutory caps. there have been necessary amendments when we did amendments in 2013 and 2015. what i'm proposing is a minor change because it says if a measure becomes law, it amends the discretionary spending limits, such as increasing the limit for the revised security category for fiscal year 2018 to be $640 billion and i just dropped the such as.

that may well be what the deal is but remember that the caps affect both security and nonsecurity and so by dropping that clause, we give full flexibilityfish a -- for a deal that would affect the security and nonsecurity portions of the budget caps and allow that. instead of sending the message that the only change we would contemplate would be in the security caps. and so that's what it does. i'm on the armed services committee, i voted for a defense authorizing bill that does this. but i didn't think i was doing that without the opportunity to make a similar argument about nonsecurity accounts. so that's what it does. it maintains the chair's authority to make the adjustments necessary if the subsequent deal requires an adjustment of both the cap and the sequester meck anymore which is the enforcement mechanism for the caps. mr. enzi: others speaking in favor? mr. kaine: i co-do have co-sponsor, if i could add

senators warner, king, and murray as co-sponsors. mr. enzi: speaking in opposition this would change the chair's ant to change discretionary spending levels in the event congress and the president agreed to new discretionary levels for fiscal year 2018. i believe we can have an honest discussion about each spending prior toin its own merit. i reject the idea that defense and nondefense have to be tied together. doing is so mere lay negotiating tactic and it's unfair to our service members. the constitution first and foremost entrusts us with the duty to provide for our defense. that duty requires matching our military spending to the missions we ask our troops to carry out and the threats they face doing. so the senate agreed last month with a strong bipartisan vote to an 89-8 higher spending level for the defense department. this budget reflects that bipartisan vote by including the

most regular discretionary defense spending we can under applicable budget law, along with appropriate level for the overseas contingency operations account. in addition, the budget includes the full amount of nondefense discretionary spending that the budget control act allows for fiscal year 2018. demonstrating our openness to a bipartisan conversation with the trump administration over the proper amount of total discretionary spending for the remainder of this fiscal year. further, the budget allows the chairman to adjust discretionary spending levels to whatever level congress and the president ultimately approve. without arbitrary demand like dollar-for-dollar links to prejudge the outcome. to ensure the budget resolution contains the necessary flexible for congress to negotiate appropriate discretionary spending lefrls for the upcoming fiss cam year, i urge that my colleagues reject this. mr. kaine: do i have a few more

second, mr. chairman? this proposed amendment has no linkage, it has no arbitrary demand, it just accommodates the chair's power to make an adjustment based on an ultimate deal and it doesn't signal that the ultimate deal will only include an adjustment for defense. that's in the hands of those who work on the deal. i don't think we should be telegraphing, and i'm an armed services committee member and voted for this, but i don't think we should be telegraphing that that's likely to be the only change. there's no linkage, there's no arbitrary demand this bill maintains the chair's authority to make adjustments, i urge support for it. mr. enzi: no other amendments are ready at this moment so i'll let us recess a little bit early. we'll reconvene at 2:30. give you 10 minutes extra for lunch. [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> budget committee chairman mike enzi of wyoming leaving the room , he said the committee would be in a break for lunch until about 2:30 eastern. look for live coverage when they return at c-span.org. meanwhile the budget passed by