tv Senate Budget Committee Votes on 2020 Budget Resolution - Amendment... CSPAN March 31, 2019 1:36am-4:00am EDT
justice john roberts. >> john roberts controls however he votes now. he will determine the law of the land. the liberals want him to come little bit. but the conservatives are trying to hold him back. where yours was. meanwhile, you have this chief justice declaring there is no such thing as an obama judge, there is no such thing as a trump judge, there is no such thing as a bonus judge. he wants to project events that is not political, when they all have their agendas of sorts. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern. the senate budget committee met this week to consider amendments to a 2020 budget resolution proposed by committee chair mike enzi. the amendments adjust tax issues come aboard a security, housing affordability, disaster relief,
resolution. i called my back to order. the committee resumes its meeting today for the purpose of considering the budget resolution for fiscal year 2020. ordering the report consistent requirements the budget act. as i noted yesterday, fiscal year 2020 budget represents an important step in reducing debt. it's focused on modest, achievable steps are country fiscal putting. this will solve our problems that i hope it marks the start of an honest bipartisan conversation about the steps we need to stick together to ensure our country believe our children and grandchildren in the world strongest in the one we inherited. it's review of the budget, nonpartisan committee responsible federal budget said this is a serious budget -- what it looks like. today, we heard a lot about the need for responsible fiscal outcome, the need to have bipartisan input. i made up my market showing up at, differences back dry your
average for this will be essential to begin stabilizing our debt. bipartisan part, it's likely have minutes. i release my mark last week, provides members with ample time to produce a moment so we can have a debate on the patient's finances. look for to debating this man allowing the public to view who is taking this tack with the seriousness it deserves. >> thank you. i'd like to make a brief opening remark and introduce my first amendment. >> help with the rules in in between. >> okay. mr. chairman, with this budget, and the trump budget was released a couple of weeks ago, micro public and colleagues made it very clear that it is they want to throw 32 american off
the healthcare they will have. eliminate protections for pre-existing conditions, for people with serious illnesses, defund planned parenthood, prevent children from staying on the parents health insurance plans until 26. substantially increased healthcare premiums for older americans wants to make major cuts in medicare, medicaid education, nutrition assistance and affordable housing. but also wants to continue to provide over $1 trillion in tax breaks for the top 1% profitable corporations. i do not believe those are the priorities of the american people. priorities may work for a well for the top 1% of the corporations but not for ordinary americans. i hope we will be able to do commitments today that will significantly change the priorities in this budget.
>> thank you. i like to remind senators as a result of the committee, the five-day which protects the resolution provided members last week, only time limits will be in order. can't think of sides of the aisle full on that rule. want to thank everybody for their corporation. want to thank everybody for their amendments. numbers will be recognized for three minutes to explain their amendment. number opposed will be given two minutes of opposition for put aside until we have our staff photos of the rule there are no proxies. we will transfer the time that we can go back to that. there will be additional minutes evenly divided to each of the stacked votes. also ask unanimous consent, reading the amendments be waived. in keeping with the committee
practice in the practice, complete substitutes for offset the total years covered by the resolution. our rules, the senate minutes will not be permitted as the budget resolution is considered to be a privileged matter. we consulted with commentary about minutes offered to ensure they do not risk when danger the privilege staff of the resolution. they advised the admin would tread the privilege, i will rule out of order. with respect to boating, they do not allow proxies, members must be present when both are there, in order to be tallied. i will recognize members to offer debate a minutes. i work with making members to do vote on the amendment minute times. we will now proceed to consideration of the armaments. there's an approved order. senator sanders.
>> thank you at the time of massive income and wealth inequality when we have three families in this country with more wealth than the bottom half of the american people, 140 step% of income going to the top 1%, the american people want a budget whose priorities reflect the needs of the middle class of working families in this country, not just those on top. the first of them i'm offering today since two, it's simple and straightforward. it establishes a deficit surplus to repeal the trump tax breaks that go to the top 1%. under the summit, 83% of the benefits of the trump tax plan would no longer go to the top 1% by the end of the decade. the top 1% would get 0% of the tax cuts under the cement. this is about stopping the coke brothers, third with your.
>> in america with a net worth of over $100 billion from getting a billion dollar tax break. the coke brothers do not need a billion-dollar tax break. this minute is about stopping other billionaires from receiving enormous tax breaks. the syndrome is about stopping amazon, netflix, general motors, ibm, federal express, and john deere from paying nothing in federal income taxes after making silly profits. i have a feeling we're going to hear all about the deficit yet, you have operations making feelings of dollars in profits, not pink nickel in federal income taxes a time when we have social needs in this country. having said that, i would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. >> thank you.
to any members wish to speak in opposition? >> thank you. i'm not sure it will take me three minutes but speaker about some of the facts. top 1% of americans on about 20% of the income and pay about 40% of income taxes. 2018, 44% of americans paid no income taxes at all. whatsoever. despite that, we did tax return, we increased the share of taxes paid by the top 1%. we make the tax code more progressive progressive tax code that already was. so decide we are reducing got a category of americans after already increasing their relative burden, is true, willard texas for almost everyone. 93% of all individuals and families that filed tax returns,
pay less in taxes as a result of the tax reform. those who pay more for almost ball, very high income individuals who live in high state and local tax jurisdictions. the other 93%.net tax reduction for the largest share of that went to lower income folks in proportion to what they pay. but we did was the tax reform that generated a huge surge in economic growth. it was by business essence as we hoped and expected it would be resulted in record low and implement rate and now a tremendous acceleration in wage gains. the best we think long time and by the way, a wage gain acceleration has occurred mostly and most impressively for the lowest income wage earners. in my view, it's been extremely successful, fair enough to say that a time will tell continues to be as successful as it has been but it was a very successful tax reform. shifted more of the relative
burden to height income individuals. i urge my colleagues about against it. >> time is expired rate for the moment. it's laid to side. consideration will resume with it divided at the time we have the stacked boat. if requested and recorded, will be taken at the agreed time if requested. >> this is amendment to protect the victims of crime by ensuring that the crime that comes fund, which is meant to provide a stable access to competition and assistance for victims of crime is actually used for its intended purses rather than diverted to other purposes as often happens with congress.
this fund was established in 1984, it's important to note that these are not taxpayers, these are results from kernel fines and penalties they are meant to give victims compensation and provide resources for people who serve victims, with a special focus and priority on victims of child abuse, sexual assault and domestic violence. there are a number of institutions that do wonderful work, helping children and especially women but all americans were victims of heinous crimes and it's outrageous that a budgetary gimmick allows congress to divert this money to other purposes. that's what happens and what might amendment would do, it would preclude the possibility of this use of this chemical which is allowing congress to have the equipment of the flesh fund to spend money on other purposes. thank you for your support on this urge my colleagues to pass the amendment. >> one minute and 45 seconds. anyone in opposition? >> i am not speaking in
opposition, i do want to support the moment but i do want to go back to other comments that are made in terms of this. i want to let folks know there are two views of what's happening right now in the economy and when we look at what happens with the tax of 2 trillion, dollars in deficit. the vast majority of them in this country, is a top 1% versus 80% of the rest of the public. my folks are waiting for the $4000 wage increase that was promised under the tax bill. certainly there's not seen the $4000 wage increase but what they have seen is the fact they are not getting tax refunds. we got was forthcoming people that are not getting a tax refund used to get and these are
working folks. a lot of them use it for medical bills or procedures they wait to be able to use their tax refund. i would suggest that for my construction worker that used to be able to write a his tools, he can't do that anymore. a business expense, they can continue to office cost of the personal. he can no longer write off the moving expenses even the business can continue to write off moving expenses overseas. this was not good policy for middle class and working people and i certainly -- when the time is right, will support it. >> twenty seconds in opposition. is begin favor of the amendment. she is right. many of this, including have been working for years to stop this budget gimmick.
is simply to allow congress to spend more money at the expense of those were victims of crime and the primary beneficiaries of this were hurting the most are women and children who are facing violence in their lives. it is simply wrong for this committee to continue to allow that budgetary process to continue. i support the amendment. >> thank you. time is expired. the limit is laid to side. >> thank you. my second minute is simple and straightforward. it would allow this committee to keep the campaign promises made by donald trump, not to cut medicare and medicaid. operative tried tax breaks for
the wealthy. over and over, as i think we all recall during this campaign for president trump told the american people that he would be a different type of republican, he would not cut medicare and medicaid. well, he was not telling the truth because in his budget, he did just that. despite saying over and over, including make seven, 2015 when he tweeted, i was the first and only potential gop candidate to say there would be no cuts to social security care. that's what trump said during his campaign. unfortunately, that's not what he is done as president of the u.s. i think we all know his budget proposes a 1.5 for the dollar to medicaid and $845 billion cost in medicare 25 doing dollar cuts in social security. in america today, as we all know, medicaid pays for more than two thirds of all nursing
home care in our country. this massive medicaid would be a disaster. millions of families. medicaid, honestly also provides just really needed healthcare for low income people and to our children. mr. chairman, president told he was he was not going to cut medicare. he told us he would not cut medicaid. let us your the president said during his campaign and do just that. asked the support for this amendment. >> permission to speak in opposition. this amendment would increase better health spending by more than $360 billion and increased taxes by the same amount. x cuts and jobs ask reduce taxes for every income group.
raising taxes would undermine the economic performance we've seen since the law passed. the resolution is focused on preserving these important programs for the people who need it most, medicaid is on a unsustainable path. it will continue in that way. better healthcare spending is skyrocketed over the past several thickets. according to cbo, the programs were able grow more rapidly. the expenditures criminal comprise of 30% of all federal spending. according to cbo, outlays were medicare, medicaid and other letter health programs, 41% of all mandatory place in 2018 totaling one in one tenth $20.1 year. according to medicare trustees report, because hospital insurance trust fund will become
by 2026 under current law. three years earlier than predicted in last years report. over the past 19 years, federal medicaid funding has almost quadrupled, increasing 2019. according to the congressional budget office. the budget before us, modernizing medicaid making modest reforms to medicare in order to extend the life of the medicare trust fund and put federal health spending on a more sustainable path. it is not prescriptive. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. >> me i briefly respond? >> i think i do have a minute. >> let's be clear. the only country on earth that does not guarantee health care to all people as a right. we spent almost twice as much. capita on healthcare. plus a lot of money on healthcare. prices in healthcare, it's worse. when you talk about medicare and
medicaid, understand the number of americans receiving will be eligible for medicare work go up by ten million people from 60 billion to 70 million. number of americans receiving medicaid also going up by ten billing over the next five years. you are seeing more and more pellet people eligible for the programs, healthcare general inflation and, we're not addressing that issue. if you want to have cost-effective health care for all, look at him medicare for all your pair program. the last thing you want to is medicare and medicaid and cause more health suffering in the country and more death. >> time is expired. the amendment is laid aside. next moment is senator kennedy. amendment number one.
>> thank you. americans take care of their less fortunate neighbors. i'm very proud of that fact. in our country, if you're hung hungry, we feed you. if you're homeless, we house you. if you're too poor to be six we will pay for your doctor. we stand about a trillion dollars, that's 12 zeros. of taxpayer money year. helping are less fortunate neighbors. the americans who think america was evil in its origins and even more evil today, i that fact. every penny we spend that we
don't need to spend helping are less fortunate neighbors as a penny less that we have to spend on cots and kids and roads and tax cuts. the purpose of my amendment is to establish a deficit neutral reserve fund, remaining to fraud and taxpayer government -assisted programs. like medicaid and snap, it would require state agencies to use federal tax returns information to verify income eligibility. a me give you an example. twenty-five states use federal tax information in some manner to determine eligibility. my steak, louisiana, legislati legislative, examination of our medicaid rolls.
they still made examination, he found 37000 people on our medicaid rolls who made way more money than the eligibility standards. we found our department of health and hospitals was not even checking income eligibility. legislative found people, this is not an isolated service, found many people making over $300,000 a year on medicaid. that's not right. my amendment would address that and i would think that we all care about our social programs. those who believe in those social programs in my judgment, should want to ensure that the money is being properly stamped so we have a sufficient amount to help those who need our help. if we have any money left over, hope and other spending
priorities. >> your time is expired. >> thank you. i'm in a position to make it clear, because of the implication, the fact that somehow all these programs that the senator taught about our warning wild. i support the effort. very strong support. in the nutrition assistance program has the lowest airfreight of any federal program. we need to keep you on that. i did want to just distress th that. right now, there are multiple ways states use in the paystub thing, the main one as well as other forms of verifying income all of which are very important. if it's required, in text return information is used, people earning under 12,000 dollars a
year usually do not file a tax return so the poorest individuals will not, those who would want to be supportive in helping not be able to make that requirement. that would be a concern of mine but we want to all come together and be vigilant and just can't help him not to say that i wish we were coming together to require the u.s. to make tax returns. >> let me respond by saying, the largest welfare recipient, it is the wealthiest family is country, walton family owns walmart. they are worth about $170 billion. huge amounts of welfare.
they pay their workers wages that are so low, many of the workers are on medicaid, they are on food stamps, they are on public housing because they can't get by on ten or $11 now. if you really want to deal with buffer in the country, let's pass 815-dollar an hour minimum wage to take the walton family off welfare. >> all time is expired. integration will resume if requested, it will be taken at the agreed-upon time. >> thank you. i have come to this money regularly to offer bipartisan i guess. we have senders here who have been cosponsored for those efforts. i want to make clear that the budget is pretty much as inexhaustible or show of healthcare ideas that are going to harm the vulnerable. not the least of which is the president's choice to try to throw out the progress made in
the last decade. for example, the airtight protection for people to creat create -- for those who have pre-existing conditions. we understand the president did this over the objection of several of his top advisers. we're trying to have healthcare for the portable, they were petrified as a political harm it's going to come from taken away healthcare from millions affordable americans and seniors. regrettably, the entire republican party needs to have falling in line. the goal is that the bad guys would be back in charge of american healthcare. although special interest, all interest, body, all the interest
productions for pre-existing conditions, often the trashcan, leaned kickoff their healthcare. her prescription drugs. insurance, it goes away when you need it most. which is what you have if you have these planes. not only are republicans regrettably endorsing the legal attack, they are attacking through the budget. they are directed by the budget, it has to come out of healthcare. that means once again, we are back at the old movie repealing the affordable care act. that is what my amendment needs to prevent. democrats are not going to allow healthcare. that's why i'm offering an amendment to bring this repeal effort to an end, at least for now. i kind of feel like this is wash, rinse and repeat because he keeps coming back again and again and again. the moment i'm offering
reconciliation, will allow this to happen. i urge my colleagues to support the men and i want to close i did at the beginning there are things we can do in a bipartisan way. colleagues right here who know it. something like this is going to harm the most vulnerable people in our society. it comes right after we borrowed close to $2 trillion. it basically gave the biggest breaks of the folks at the top. that's not what we are supposed to be about. >> thank you. >> what he's doing is basically saying that reconciliation process is off the table. that's way they used to pass obamacare. the reason winds to keep it in place is it seems like a good idea to me, it went number.
in a minute employer deductions. people buy their own health insurance. had to be injured but they would have choices in the marketplace. one thing i am dead set on his stocking obamacare from basically destroying private sector healthcare. right now, there are 1524 counties in american the only have one choice in the exchange. south carolina, 31% increase in obamacare premiums last year. we started with five choices and the exchange in 2014, dumped one. why? dropping out, not working, designed to consolidate with the private sector healthcare into the government. that doorway to get single parent healthcare making it so expensive that nobody can
compete in exchanges except the government sponsored plan. employers can drop coverage cheaper, people any change in that the government out. in the next decade, 2018 -- 2027 basically, ten years, 909 -- in subsidies. it's going through the roof, less choices and we go to the public and alternative that is sustainable that works and finally, a lot of people in south carolina making 50 or $60000 in exchange, might as well not have coverage at all. the doctors are so high, you don't have insurance. you are paying a premium to give it to someone else for free.
time is expired. the amendment is laid aside, consideration will reserve and if requested, both will be taking about the agreed-upon time. >> when i came here, i decided to run full time along time ago. for those of us were here, set the example. make the american couple, some of the things we do, not only the product of together like we are witnessing today, but let's look at pensions. it's something that universally has been underfunded. hardly no one is doing anything. it's an impending liability that we are going to have to contend with along with medicare, social
security, that aside, i thought you would at least be able to opt out of senatorial pensions. if you chose to. not the grandstand, to put that out there is the only thing i'm interested in here, the first thing i want to talk about philosophically. i do not like the idea and i thought surely it would be simple if you chose not to contribute that you can opt out. well, i gave up. i resigned from the company's ceo, and needed healthcare plan and, like most americans, wanted to be part of a 4o1k. then i find that you cannot do that unless in order to get health insurance to participate in the 4o1k lane, you have to participate in the pension plan. that's one of the bizarre rules but i don't understand why it would be part of it.
it's simple that you could voluntarily withdraw and not sacrifice the other components want to become a senator, which all americans need, health insurance. a lot of other ideas on how we make that more productive sound in the long run. it's very simple. if you choose not to participate, you ought to be able to do it with no strings attached. i think it would not only give the possibility of the individual senators who choose to do it, would also set a good example on how we might start operating different senators, more in line with the rest of the american public. i urge my colleagues in support. thank you. >> does anyone wish to speak in opposition?
you can cosponsor at any time. it's underscore. seeing no further debate, the amendment will resume if requested. your report courted but will be taken at that time. >> i like to call my team to. this feels but a portion of its work on page 42. it establishes the reserve hunt for border security of immigration. we keep that in place. there are challenges at the border. we need to give the ability to have the ability to make adjustments. not proposing the strike if i am proposing this significant modification. we will all agree we have challenges. you can call a emergency, crisis, whatever want. there's no challenge that it's
an emergency the military. i served on the armed services committee. was going on is not a military emergency. general said it's not military emergency. secretary shanahan, it's not a military emergency. the argument hasn't programmed any money for deployment at the border. yet, president is proposing to take $6 billion out of the fy 19 military budget to do with not military emergency. i can't affect that because it's 2020. what i propose in the amendment is that deficit neutral reserve fund in the section, would not be able to be used if military dollars or reprogrammed over to deal with the nonmilitary
emergency. i don't think we should ransack military construction projects for other military products in our state to deal with a nonmilitary emergency. the president has submitted a list of products that create events that could be affected in fy 19 projects for all of our state to do with this nonmilitary emergency. if we are going to come up with additional funds for the border, you ought to do it not a military funds but not military. that is the request. leave it in place but disable it if there's an attempt to ransack the budget to deal with nonmilitary purchase. >> senator king knows i say this with no ill will. i have got respect for him. i proposed this amendment. i think it will have certain impact of the money of the president to used to secure our borders.
to me, this issue is fairly straightforward. i would think that many of us could agree on this. if illegal immigration -- legal immigration makes our country strong, you legal immigration undermines legal immigration. illegal immigration is illegal. the. one way, not the only way but one way to control illegal immigration is through a border wall. it worked in san diego, it's worked in yuma, it worked in el paso, and the west bank and israel and i can continue going on. that's not to say there are other mechanisms. we all know that long-term problem of illegal immigration today is the deplorable
situation in nicaragua. in guatemala. in the meantime, it is impossible, i would submit to you, to secure 1900 miles of real estate without that. if you believe there's no distinction on nazi -- not suggesting that. if you think it should be no distinction between illegal immigration and legal immigration, which i don't, it's a separate issue. if you believe the border is just a nuisance, but a separate issue. i don't think that's what the american people believe. >> do have a few seconds left? >> i thank you had 15 seconds. >> legal versus illegal is not the issue. they ransacked the military budget to deal with a
nonmilitary emergency. the only think this would do this thing on a nonmilitary emergency, you couldn't take funds from the military budget. >> time is expired. the amendment is laid aside. vote taken at the agreed time. senator scott. i want to make sure people are covered and they to get the health care they need. i work with families that didn't have health insurance. i watched my mom cry because she couldn't find a place for my brother when he had a significant disease. think goodness there is a hospital about four hours away take care of my brother every six months. i know there's -- it's important not just what would have been a family like mine. i think the obamacare is causing deductibles to help premiums skyrocket. we got to come up with a
solution. one thing i believe in, protecting people with a pre-existing condition. whether obamacare is overturned or not, i want to make sure that all across the country, people have the same issues memo pad no faking circuit healthcare. it's simple, make sure the people with pre-existing conditions are covered. >> thank you. this issue has often been mischaracterized. on to address this. i don't know any republicans who believe that people who have healthcare costs should be left to their own devices. if you have a working class family has a child with cystic fibrosis, that's affordable for anyone. without some kind of help. obamacare attempted to deal with this. i think one of the central cause of obamacare is that is spread that cost over to narrow of a pool. the result of that, they would
include individual mandates to force people into the pool, the pool was to narrow the cost for everyone was very high. you have this mechanism of reimbursement of people choosing not to participate if you don't qualify for reimbursement that is completely unaffordable. there's a legitimate policy debate about how best to ensure that people with high costs have a way to have the cost socialize. we're not going to leave people stranded. my view, they should be spread out over the broadest possible category of americans not a narrow pool that would be a better approach. we could do it in a much more direct and transparent way. we can also acknowledge that states a better way still. my understanding of the attempt and substance of the amendment is that we want to reinforce the fact that people with these outlier high costs have to be able to have affordable health insurance but the community
rating mechanism of obamacare is not the only way to do that. that's my understanding of this a minute. >> ten tickets left. >> i want to be a cosponsor of it and i want to emphasize i do not know of one republican who is not in pre-existing conditions. as well as no capital coverage for myself, and keeping children on the planet until 26. the debate is vehicle that you to buy. >> time is expired. the members want to speak in opposition. >> thank you. it's one thing to say we support pre-existing conditions. another thing to have actions that create a way to be able to do that. project repeals the affordable care act and within that, our pursuit consumer productions that are in all insurance, not
the small, it is every insurance plan expected to protect consumers, cover people with pre-existing conditions. make sure that things that women need are no longer requiring to charge more for that. making sure i put tax on cancer treatments. people age 26, all of that is on every part of the insurance system. that is how it is set up. what we're seeing with the ministration is exact opposite. unfortunately, no willingness of colleagues and the other side running in opposition. the administration put together what we call junk plans. things that have to cover. it'll have to cover anymore. the things that would affect people with pre-existing conditions or paternity care or other things. more and more of those are going
into the marketplace. what has happened in the last year, we have seen the cost go up 16.6% because of the instability and sabotaging going on in the insurance market. insurance companies figure out how to how they rate this, given the junk plans coming on the market. it's an increase for families that, more than would otherwise be. numbers just don't show that. we've got options, you can do medicare for everybody and single-payer system. you have other toys you can do veterans system, the va and cover everyone with pre-existing kitchens or develop a model like using the affordable care act. i welcome colleagues to try to figure this out, how in the world you can cover people with pre-existing conditions when you don't support any mechanism that would actually do that.
>> let me briefly say this. the aarp says that the effort to repeal the affordable care act in the courts, which is the trump administration supported, would allow insurance companies to once again, charge people with high blood pressure, heart disease, cancer and other conditions, ten times more than what others pay for the same coverage or deny them coverage altogether. this would be a overstating to the estimate of 25 many older adults with pre-existing conditions. if you vote to repeal the affordable care act, you vote to end productions on pre-existing conditions. >> expired for debate. we have a slight change in the schedule that's been requested. that's too number five to
accommodate her and number one, side-by-side for any objection? no objection, number five. >> thank you. this would simply repeal the 9 billion-dollar pet that is in the resolution in terms of the guts to basically the u.s. deponent of agriculture. we just passed the strongest bipartisan basis ever, a farm bill and appreciate very much everyone working with senator roberts and i to be able to do that. this would completely upend what we did in the farm bill. i want to stress that we take very seriously the effectiveness and efficient use of taxpayer dollars in the previous farm bill. we were the only committee to actually do that the direction
from the big deficit reduction committee broke down. we had committed 23 billion, which we did. this time we worked with them a budget neutral position, no new dollars in the farm bill. we did existing programs, rebuild over 150 authorizations that were not being utilized or in the end though, what we did was create five years with a certainty for our farmers and ranchers and communities where they are being offended because of the instability around trade and farm labor and all of the other issues and to about this 9 billion to go forward will undermine farmers and ranchers conservation programs, which are critical, research, trade promotion, world community efforts to get outside of our big cities, and the community where i grew up, development funds are being used for the roads, small business loans, the
fire truck, police car, to be able to medicine in the hospital, to put in broadband, all the things we need in world communities. this man would strike that night billion-dollar reconciliation construction and i would hope the community would support it. thank you. >> any others in the court? in opposition, i do urge my colleagues to oppose this i'm. they support strong economic growth and curbs our addiction to overspending to safeguard americans future. reconciliation provided the committees represent to the first steps to addressing the spending problem and reducing our $22 trillion debt. this instruction is simply the target, not prescriptive.
only up to the critics to decide how to reach the deficit reduction total if it survives the four and if it survives the conference with the house. previous reconciliation promoted energy independence, an appointment historical and extended economic growth. i believe the instructions will build upon this. it provides new opportunity for them to streamline programs and identify ways, fraudulent spending. for example, even though unimportant rate is just three in a tense percent, 38 million people still receive supplemental nutrition assistance program. according to the department of agriculture, three quarters of all able bodies without dependents, receive snap and working despite the problems work requirement. also has the major and proper payment problem with three and three tenths billion dollars in overpayment.
this amendment would harm efforts to reduce government overlap waste to get physical spending under control. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. >> anybody else speak in opposition? >> much time to have? >> twenty seconds. >> i'll pass. [laughter] >> they will resume today another time. >> thank you. my side-by-side, i think further clarifies the intention of the budget. let me start by applauding and appreciating senators leadership on the successful farm bill. i was honored to be on the farm bill conference committee and admired your work in center.
it reaffirms this budgets commitment to the firm's state and tools and i to farmers and ranchers. the budget asked the committee to find $9 billion in savings over five years. it's focused specifically on the entitlement programs and specifically on finding waste that is expected or projected to save $10 million. plenty to cover $9 billion in the proposed savings. it clarifies this budget for supports edgar culture and safety net programs such as insurance and appreciate that you vote on the mm. >> 145 remaining.
the support efforts to strengthen the economy and ensure the safety that is working for the average hard-working farming operations. that's why the resolution doesn't propose or eliminate any risk management programs. the project farm income will increase this year, still well below historic average. it's facing role america was management tools essential in order for parkers, farmers to able to stabilize their farming. flooding underscored the importance of policies like crop insurance and disastrous systems. it helps farmers recover from these terrible after disasters. this isn't just important for the midwest, according to congressional budget office. recently, beside over 338 million acres currently insured across the country. in addition, one in seven tenths million farms price last coverage or agriculture risk
coverage programs. i commend my colleague for his work helping prosperity of our patient farmers and ranchers by ensuring robust armed safety net. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. you back the time in opposition. >> thank you. here's my concern with this. possible, i understand the intent is to take aside food programs. i just think that's important to say. the reality is that if you exempt certain things, you shift bigger cuts to the rest of the farm bill programs. his what that means. trade promotion at a critical time for farmers, it could be conservation, we increase the conservation program very important.
it's a very large part of the farm bill. i can't believe that would not be taking a cut. research. we will add a new animal faxing. it's important for animal disease. that would be in jeopardy. world broadband, whole range of things that are in the farm bill that would not be protected under this amendment. i believe we should be following what we did bipartisan basis. we were very clear in terms of integrity and the farm for. the tax dollars, the tax overwhelmingly the largest bipartisan vote ever. i don't know why we would suddenly turn our backs on something that is finally having the tools to implement farmers supported, they are counting on it and it's a very chaotic situation for them. i think this is the wrong approach. >> any discussion in opposition?
time is expired. the consideration will resume if requested at the agreed-upon time. back to the regular order, senator scott. >> people across the country, they come because the natural beauty. with this one is, lake okeechobee, it's one 100% federal controlled funded. they make all the decisions about it. we have too much water, what happens is we end up getting out of blooms in the east coast, and west. this congress last year, with support of the president funded in the okeechobee, which is significant and but i'm very appreciative of, or to get resources, we spent $2 billion
in restoring the everglades. federal government has not been the best partner. especially my eight years as governor i'm still appreciative about that. with this amendment does is work with secure $200 million in federal funds to continue working on the everglades in the entire south i would appreciate everybody's support. >> and went speak in favor? in opposition? seeing none, all-time is expired. the moment is laid aside for consideration to resume if requested at a later, appropriate time. senator whitehouse. >> thank you very much. i remember that day, my days of
innocence when i came to the budget committee, deficit neutral reserve funds, actually did anything. i got one past. i've learned better over the years. what this mm focuses on is something i think it is bipartisan agreed-upon, the need for reform of the budget committee. we are not falling meaningless. we do two things. we do this, which is an exercise of partisan messaging back and forth, which is fine but it doesn't accomplish anything. we are the delivery system for a reconciliation measure for allowing senate majority to pass something big with a simple majority around the threshold. those are the two things we do. we do nothing else. we do not look at the debt and deficit in a serious way. we're not even medically
prepared to look at the debt and deficit in a serious way. if you look around the state building, the capital, if you look for where they are supposed to look at the debt and deficit, there is no other place. it's not like we can pay no attention here because don't worry, the appropriate is have got it. ... the chair man because he is an enthusiastic ally and supporter of the budget reform process and
has been extremely productive in all of this and i also want to thank the democratic and republican members on the select committee who last year unanimously supported the measure so i think it's past a lot of tests of reasonableness. at the bottom line is if we are going to do something serious about the debt and deficit, we've got to get the arithmetic right. you've got to have health care spending, you've got to have tax spending and appropriations in the arithmetic. take any of those out and your numbers don't even add up you are not doing the math correctly. second thing is to figure out what our goal is, and it seems from the unanimous testimony in the select committee and virtual all the testimony we've had in this committee the debt to gdp
ratio we can argue about what it should be but that is a conversation we should be having at the last debate is how long does it take to get there. another unanimous consent for three minutes? then there's two minutes for the other side. third is the timing to get there if you try to giv to do that alh once you will have a catastrophic shock and if you give yourself ten or 15 years, and now you have the time frame to get there and if we can do that we will have done something vaguely also make it biannual and if we are going to be serious and should be biannual and this is something the chairman strongly supported and for those of us that expects to be in the majority in the future doeit does preserve reconciliatn so we still have that feature. we hope the bipartisan nature of
this. this is a deficit neutral reserve fund that it will provide a bipartisan message that we are willing to consider trying to get ourselves out of this blog that we are in right now. thank you mr. chairman. >> to make some comments and support in using part of this time unless there is someone who wishes to oppose and there's a debatthere is adebate on the prr once we finish the budget resolution that will happen this spring with hearings and budget process reforin thebudget proceo have people who are key on that committee and provide a panel i
strongly favor the fundamental reforms we've been working on for three years and i appreciate you mentioning the biannual budgeting procedures and be discouraged consolidation and the budget resolution on the floor developing a path for bringing the debt down to sustainable levels i think the senator helped with that. to support this bipartisanship in which it is offered any other comments i know there are a lot of others that have ideas for the budget reform that we want to make sure happened and it gives a much more extensive opportunity. the process we can come to with
any strong consensus under the leadershileadership and the chad ranking member. >> thank you. senator brown. very briefly yesterday in the opening statements i kind of reflected at the same thing. the same thing. for the short time i've been here to declare this the most inspirational momen moment i'ven the senate i think if we can do what we talked about yesterday, making this the most important committee because we put a real essence to the process, my time spent would be something i would be very happy with. >> all time is expired so that will be set aside for a later time. senator merkley was supposed to be next, but he is not here so permission to move to senator cain number one.
>> section five deals with homeland security governmental affairs and there's an instruction for the committee to report changes within its jurisdiction to reduce the deficit by not less than 15 billion for the period 2024. it would strike the reconciliation and it wouldn't do that because of the effect we've already visited with the shutdown. the 15 billion in savings over this time would affect employees and a very significant way. they've already been blasted with a 35 they shut down and they've interacted enough to know the morale and attention on these employees has been significant so we will strike the reconciliation and we are still working on appropriation
dealing with this question but we would remove it from the reconciliation process because cuts to this magnitude would result in seeing retirement benefits reduced, calculation of the federal employee pension, cuts to the cost of living, retirement contributions on the person fees and in what amounts to a pay cut for civil servants who serve honorably. i thank my colleague from virginia and i want to support this amendment the way that it works this requires without getting a single penny in the
pension benefits, so the money taken out of he your paycheck today, no benefit in the future, flat-out pay cut. i think it is a very bad thing to do for the hard-working federal employees have been working hard for the country and had to go through a 35 they shut down. these are reconciliation instructions to go through a process to ever become a reality of request but it's a first step to addressing the problems in avoiding trillions of dollars the reconciliation for the committees and it's not prescriptive so it is up to the committee of jurisdiction how they decide to hit their targets. target. it can be done through cuts and revenue and it provides an opportunity for members of homeland security and
governmental affairs committee by which i'm proud to serve to make decision on areas in the jurisdiction that can contribute to deficit reduction including identified duplicate it for fraudulent spending in the mismanagement in the federal government surely we can all support making the government more efficient. the reform is necessary to bring the system in line with the private sector.
the type of benefits in the private sector. to bring it in line to projected deficits in the next 30 years we have to take a look at us and we can't take anything off the table. i appreciate that the chairman has done just in providing the type of reconciliation structu structure. getting in a line of the private sector. >> time is expired. the amendment is beta five and while in any questions or be taken at the agreed upon time. senator grassley. >> i would like to call up amendment number two.
everybody knows that iowa and nebraska and now missouri experience historic flooding. two thirds of my state 99 counties are infected and have been declared disaster. estimated damages is around one and six tenths billion. agriculture small businesses and repairs and i believe even those numbers are likely to rise. total damage is extended beyond the capability of local, state government and in the state of iowa is stepping up to the place to find a solution. my amendment is for a deficit to provide for increased cooperation and federal department with agencies and state governments into disaster response. federal government should accuse midwestern commonsense to find solutions with state partners
when responding to flood and recovery and medication. for instance, the current system has the federal government throwing away a money instead of fixing the problem. we waste a lot of time, effort and money in buildin and buildid tearing down temporary flood fighting structures using these disaster funds. what we should do instead is pulled resources from different agencies and levels of government to spend money on permanent solutions to problems insteatheproblems instead of the temporary things that's what will ultimately save the taxpayers money while protecting homes and small businesses and farms and i urge my colleagues to support my amendment to use common sense to spend the disaster money efficiently.
it is imperative that we deal with it in a nonpartisan way. disasters strike states that are republican and better democrats. disaster strikes territories like puerto rico that has a high percentage of the american citizens having fought and died in our war. they are not so sure they want is for the disaster relief in the democratic states. so, let us be clear this is the united states of america and no
matter where the disaster strikes, it is a role of the federal government to be there whether it is a republican governor, democratic governor from independent or whatever. with that, i certainly support the amendment. >> i declare the time has expired. the amendments laid aside will resume and the vote will be done at the agreed upon time speaker i am and the leader mcconnell
made these statements saying no middle-class families will see an increase in their taxes and they have to revise those later when it was clear that the family is good see a tax increase. if you look at my home state of maryland, the comptroller of the state did an analysis estimating 396,000 tax filers are going to see a tax increase. the vast majority of the 370,000 households make less than 350,000 the vast majority of those 296,000 requesting 100,000 a year in income and yes they are seeing a tax increase from a bill that was advertised as not raising taxes on anyone in the middle class. if you look at the analysis of tax policy center, making less than $200,000 they will see a tax increase of $8.3 billion this year.
this amendment is very simple in that same bill we provided a huge windfall tax break to the wealthiest estates in the country. before the bill passed last year, we only put taxes on a states couple over $11 million. they were paying any type of estate tax and that was changed and doubled so now you are exempt up to $22 million of the state taking it from 200,000 taxpayers to one in a thousand. so it turns out that the annual windfall to those big estates is approximately $8 billion, which happens to coincide with the tax
increase that middle class families are experiencing because of bill our republican so this is a simple instruction directing us to make sure those middle-class families who saw a tax increase is a result of that bill don't face that increase and they are held harmless. does the board of $11 million $n without an additional windfall. they will go back to paying on the same basis as they were before in other words if your state has valued at a lo below 11 million don't pay a penny above that come it will go back to just a year and a half ago. i urge support. >> according to the attacks policy center by many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle the vast majority earning 200,000 per year will pay less in income tax this year
thanks to the jobs act that by doubling the previous estate tax the wall and short of it they are affected by this unfair tax and then you are taxed just because you died. they were affected by the new limit on the deduction for state and local taxes because they lived in high tax states. that doesn't think he shoul meao back to subsidizing. especially if it means subjecting more family-owned farms and small but this to the threat of financial ruin caused by the death tax eliminating the cap on the deduction for state and local taxes as the senator from maryland has proposed and with less than 7% going to the families earning less than $270,000 changing the exemption from its 2018 levels would come
nowhere close to offsetting the revenue the goal is to provide additional tax relief to middle income families across the country and preserve tax refunds middle-class tax cuts i believe there is bipartisan support for that. we shouldn't tie it to issues but only keep us from publishing things that we can all agree on. further comments and oppositio oppositions. into the amendments laid aside to resume a. of us just explained by senator van hollen and that would have the effect so that the
wealthiest estates will perfectly hit the family-owned businesses, farms and ranches congress what to do everything we can to encourage the family enterprises to be passed on to the next generation of kids and grandkids by expanding the reach the democrats are advocating against that goal and it hits the agricultural sector particularly hard in the states where the crop land values have increased tremendously over the last years and farmers don't generally buy farmland one day and sell to the next. they do it in the farming operation efficient and to pass on to the next generation.
my amendment would make permanent the levels included in the tax cuts and jobs act and it would continue to protect family-owned businesses, farms and ranches from confiscation as opposed to a plain old tax increase. i would urge my colleagues to support the amendment. >> others in support? >> the future man and others in opposition. >> let's be clear when the american people express contempt for the united states congress this is one of the reasons they do. the senator no doubt knows the apply to the one tenth of 1%. living paycheck to paycheck and 40 million people living in
poverty you have the very rich doing phenomenally well, better than any perhaps in history. this applies to the 1700 wealthiest families in america inherits over 11 million wealth. i represent the state of family farmers to the best of my knowledge not one in the state of vermont will be impacted by this and in 2017, only 20 farms and small businesses in the entire country owed any estate tax and the farm bureau has never been able to find one family in america that's ever lost the farm to the estate tax not a single one.
you think the richest families in america would have a tax break up to $63 billion if you think they need a tax break when the infrastructure is crumbling when kids can't afford to go to college, i guess you could support that amendment. i think it is a bad idea. >> just to reinforce coming you were quoting from the tax policy center and the figure he cited about that 1% of the 01% that were affected. my amendment would have taken those to overrun.
did you wish to take the remaining minutes of in that case the amendment is laid aside and consideration will resume and be taken at the agreed upon time. we've had an agreement to switch from merkley number one to merkley number three because senator johnson had to leave and had the side-by-side. >> mr. chairman, amendment number three would create a deficit mutual fund program to analyze threats to the military installations to the extreme storms, wildfire, drought, sea level now more than ever it is clear we must act swiftly to protect the planet because it is not an imminent risout and immie multiple effects of climate chaos.
the air force base in nebraska one of the nation's most important airbases was flooded dozens of the buildings inundated and the damage crippled the capabilities of air force base and its home to the u.s. strategic command that oversees the nuclear deterrence and global strike capability is. extreme weather conditions like the flooding in the heartland are not going to magically end. we can no longer risk ignoring the impact on the economy and national security they are threatened by climate chaos. there's more we need to know which is the most vulnerable basis and what actions do we need to take to advance, what do we need to do to mitigate, what will this do to the readiness? that's why an operating bas an o
incorporate a deficit neutral reserve funds to analyze the threats to u.s. military installation to extreme storms, wildfire droughts and other impacts of climate chaos. might be listed as a cosponsor. i will also speak in support. i think we can adopt this by a voice vote to facilitate legislation that analyzes threats due to the extreme weather events like storms, wildfire droughts, it supports and strengthens the military and we should evaluate the vulnerabilities to ensure the highest level of readiness is there to ensure the protection of the national security. further comments, opposition. the amendment will be set aside and resume for the vote at the agreed upon time.
the next amendment to senator harris. >> ranking member of it like to offer harris amendment number one. this would make rental housing more affordable for working families who are struggling to make ends meet. a home of courses more than just a roof and floor walls and stable housing helps families placed within their communities and provide a platform to raise their families and participate in our economy. today far too many people struggle to find affordable housing. the cost of living is skyrocketing and americans haven't received a meaningful pay raise in a generation. 99% of the counties in the united states a minimum-wage worker working full time 40 hours a week cannot afford market for a one-bedroom apartment. over 21 million americans spent 31% of their income on rent.
black and hispanic households are twice as likely to rent their homes and 46% of african-american printer households were burdened compared with 34% of other households. this is more than just about economics. it's about the security and dignity that every american and every human being deserves. that's why i'm offering this amendment to improve the affordability of renting housing and rental housing for working families and i urge my vote yes on this amendment i want to thank senator harris for offering this amendment. there are some issues we don't talk enough about and one of
those is the crisis in affordable housing over this country spending their limited incomes for a roof over their heads and when you spend that kind of money you don't have the source is available for other needs. several years ago we managed to get past working with congresswoman lee in the house the national affordable housing trust fund needs substantially more funding. there are other programs that need funding. bottom line is not a radical idea to say that every person should be living in housing that is safe and affordable and this amendment take, and thisamendmet direction. >> others in support. if not i will use 30 seconds of support. this is an amendmen amendment wd adopted by voice vote when the time comes that would create a deficit neutral reserve funds for housing and low income families according to the congressional research service
the prices have increased in recent years faster than incomes and according, h edie% today wih incomes below 30,003 over 30 30r 30% of their income for housing. we do have to do better on housing assistance the government accountability office found across the government 20 different entities and 160 programs and the tools that support home ownership that is too dispersed because nobody setting goals were checking on it. i've used the balance of my time is there anyone in opposition? >> thank you mr. chairman. the problem i have in this begs the question how much are we supposed to spend we already spent a massive amount subsidizing rental income and we spent over $50 billion a year from the programs alone and 23 billion on the rental vouchers and 7 billion on public housing 3 billion community block grants and homeless assistance not to mention the billions and billions in
subsidies we provided tax code for the rental housing. my question is how much is enough. the problem in my view is a problem with supply and demand we have municipalities and states across the country that obstruct the development of new affordable housing and blood sud that doesn't come on the market because bad policies like rent control and exclusionary zoning or the undermining problems. to throw more federal dollars at it without the underlying problem that is a lack of supply would be a mistake so i would urge a no vote. >> i will tell you how much is enough. you shouldn't have many hundreds of thousands of people tonight including a few blocks from here sleeping out on the street. >> it sounds like opposition to the harris amendment.
any opposition? >> i don't know how i'm going to vote on this amendment. i'm not against affordable housing. it's like being against children or prosperity. i think we are all for affordable housing but i think that the senator is right on supply and demand, and i would respectively point out when we have social media companies like facebook allowing the owners of rental properties to advertise those properties on the social media platform and exclude certain people, our income status or if they want to, gender, that would also be a good place to start in terms of correcting the problem in terms of supply and demand.
>> anyone else in the oppositi opposition? verse 18 seconds left. time is expired. the amendment is laid aside into consideration will resume. senator grassley. >> i would like to call lott amendment number one. i'm back to the floods of western iowa, nebraska, missouri. it took time for the communities to recover from a catastrophic flood each years ago. this year is worse. especially those living along the missouri river. i've heard from southwest iowa communities raising concerns about non- responsive corps of engineers particularly the lack
of communication. for years i've worked with several of my along the missouri river to make flood control the number one priority and it seems to me despite its decisions andd misplaced priorities have become common since it seems to me protection of life and property should take a precedent over the recreation and experiments that may or may not have endangered species were over purposes into master manual. my amendment then sets up a reserve fund to increase focus on flood control for the operations of the missouri river at the number one priority for ththe operation on the missouri river should be flood control.
>> others in favor. >> i would offer support for this and in the same spirit, this is a responsibility we should all take seriously wherever the emergency far and i am struck that today we are going to have a vote on a disaster supplemental where all the money from puerto rico is taken out. if they vote we are going to have in about an hour the house passed the supplemental with the disaster relief for virtually all of our states or many of our states but with the senate is trying to do this but if the votes that dramatically reduces the disaster relief bill americans are americans, the need on the missouri river the disaster is far -- photos are
disastrous. >> other comments in support? >> president trump may or may not like the mayor but that isn't a reason to deny the territory buddy they desperately need. >> others in support of the amendment. seeing none, opposition? the time is expired, consideration will resume. >> i call upon amendment number three. i believe the budgets matter both as a statement of our values and priorities and it's a blueprint of how he planned to govern absolve problems on behalf of our constituents but
before we can get to work on that kind of the most important thing we can do right now is work together to reach a bipartisan budget agreement. we need a deal and i'm willing to work with any body in any field. it was made possible by the work of this committee vote in setting a proposal in the senate plan and then by reaching an agreement with paul ryan and the house budget committee at the end of the year. it wasn't perfect, but it helped and the brinksmanship and gave the appropriations committee very clear marching orders for congress. while i believe you could have gone further, i do appreciate that you did include both the reserve fund and the scorekeeping language that would reset the budget talks following another bipartisan budget deal and i applaud that it rejects the gimmick and in doing so signals an expectation congress
will work together once again even if president trump isn't cooperating. this would better align your adjustment language with the results of the previous food on the deal three times now and we know how they work. we should be clear laying out the certainty in the deal otherwise we are guaranteeing a very difficult appropriations process from fiscal year 2021. and of course we need to peer at the against the national security at our domestic priorities, which is a principle that we have all affirmed in each deal that we have reached. so, that's what my amendment reflects and it makes it clear we will not increase the defense side of the ledger and leave middle-class families behind. we didn't do that under my leadership in 2013 and i would ask the committee to recant her doing so now i'm 2019. >> others in support of the amendment.
>> i'm going to urge my site to opposside tooppose this amendmer the second sentence that requires the adjustment parody between defense and nondefense spending we can have an honest discussion but i reject the idea that defense and nondefense have to be tied together. it's a negotiating tactic and it's unfair to the servicemembers. the constitution and trust us with the duty to provide into the biggest matc quakers notchie military spending to the missions the troops conduct and the threats country faces. the budget reflects the bipartisan goal of providing it including those regular discretionary funds to be good defense spending under current law.
last comment priority hasn't existed between defense and nondefense spending from the beginning. defense spending was entirely on the discretionary side. nondefense discretionary spending was absorbed by mandatory spending. for 2020 alone for the defense discretionary cuts for 54 billioof 54 billionwhile thee discretionary cuts are less than 36 billion. the other place where it's never existed as when we look at the authorization for the appropriation without fail it is authorized each year and goes largely unauthorized of more than 300 million in unauthorized appropriations in 2019 alone. so i would urge my colleagues to close this by opposing the amendment.
>> it means replacing the cuts in both defense and long defense from the sequester cap levels and an equal manner that is the deal via reache by reached withe chairman paul ryan and in 2013 it worked well and it's been the guiding principle that he is used to reach every deal since then and i think we should recognize that is the way we can move forward and accomplish the goal we all have of making sure we get through this and fal follow-up our responsibility for the budget process that at least has a smooth sailing of a blueprint. >> i suspect that will be a requirement. >> all time is expired. the amendment is laid aside. consideration will resume and recorded votes will be taken at the appropriate time.
thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment would create a deficit neutral reserve fund to fully audit the department of defense and outrageous cost overruns and crack down on the massive amount of fraud perpetrated by the defense contractors. i wish i could tell you that it was a brilliant new idea but i thought of the idea has been around for a long time. on september 10, 2001 donald rumsfeld said, and i quote, according to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. we cannot share information from this building with the pentagon because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible yet
almost 18 years after secretary rumsfeld statement by the department of defense has still not passed a clean audit despite the fact the pentagon controls in excess of $2.2 trillion or roughly 70% of the entire federal government owns. meanwhile virtually every major defense contractor in the united states has paid billions of dollars in fines and settlements for the misconduct and fraud while making huge profits on those government contracts. i hope that my colleagues will support this important amendment. >> others in favor? i guess i have comments in favor.
i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. it would create support for the efforts to pass a clean financial audit and it's the duty of congress to apply its oversight role. i applaud the department for completing its first financial audit in 2018 and although they didn't receive an opinion they help to determine various vulnerabilities in areas to improve and help eliminate waste, fraud and abuse to improve the management and reform of the department. next month the committee is going to hold a hearing in the department in which we have an opportunity to learn more about its efforts. i look forward to working with my colleagues in the senate to continue conducting oversight including the department of defense and to receive the clean audit i would support the amendment.
>> the time is expired for the amendment and it is laid aside consideration will resume in a recorded vote if requested. i call a amendment number two, and i will be very brief. i know my colleagues filed amendments to strike reconciliation and their committees and as you know mr. chairman, senator alexander and i are working together in a bipartisan manner to address many of the major issues that american families and communities want us to be working on for instance, we are in the process of negotiating a bipartisan comprehensive reauthorization of the higher education act that will try to improve access, a portability, accountability and safety for the students and families. we are doing that under regular order including reconciliation and targeting the savings we may need it doesn't help in those negotiations, it hurts them and if we want to take steps in the
committee to move beyond some of the recent band and partisanship from last congress, reconciliation is not the approach we should take. i urge my colleagues to strike the reconciliation instruction on the committee. >> others speaking in favor? seeing none, i will voice my position. our country is on an unsustainable fiscal path fueled by out-of-control spending. we need to have committees taking a look at not just ways to give away more money the ways we can create efficiencies it is thatis a target for the committ. it's not prescriptive it is up to the jurisdiction how to hit their target and alyssa goes to conferencthomas agostaconference
reconciliation makes it through which i think would make it very bipartisan since it is a split congress so it doesn't mandate the savings and we want to participate in that capacity i believe they allow the committee to focus on reforms many of which can be bipartisan in nature that improve programs, outcomes. one of the things we did for consolidation to save money so this instruction is an opportunity for my colleagues and opportunities i think would take for long-term viability and education and health programs. >> seeing none, the amendment will be laid aside to resume later.
>> amendment number 11 -- number two. on these amendments i would like permission to be able to discuss them even though i do tend to withdraw with a further thought this needs to be part of the process when we get the budget reform later on down the road. brief comments about it since we are not going to be voting on it today. this is simply one little way to make it a little more difficult to renege on what we should stick with. it doesn't amount to more than 17 to 20 million each year, but to me if we can start their we will be honest that is to reform the process in general. i think until we start doing little things, which show we are going to change framework and
how it's than we are going to lose more credibility's year after year, and i think what you've stressed all along will be looking at some type of calamity down the road rather than using all of the smarts do we have on the committee to rein things in and get some agreement across the board. so i would ask when we get to this point on the road that i would be able to maybe lead on this and a few other reform measures. >> i appreciate somebody wanting to take the initiative to lead on some of these issues and we will have a full discussion and debate on them and hopefully come to a number of agreements that will put us on a course that will give us the stability
senator mccain mentioned before being on the glide slope to get to another place. other comments in favor? seeing noneof the amendments will be satisfied did you want to speak on the other one as well which covers it in more detail? >> same principle, do not need to. thank you for speeding up the process of making the point that is necessary as well. i don't want to sound repetitive, but again, we have had a lot of bipartisan discussions right here in this budget committee over the years
on bipartisanship and taxes, i wrote to full bills, once with the chair and then with dan coats who's now donald trump's ban on intelligence and then early in 2017 democrats made it clear they want a bipartisan bill that it has to focus on the middle class and making sure the 1% and the multinational corporations pay their fair share. we didn't get bipartisanship and we didn't get the substance that would have given us the chance to have something that would be bipartisan with the 1% and the multinational paying their fair share. the budget proposal before us is in lockstep with the wall that is unbelievably unfair and ineffective but it makes it
worse. handouts to millionaires and corporations, middle-class tax cuts are temporary, millions got hit with an outcry tax increase and there was a promise made to the middle class that's been broken they were promised 4,000-dollar raises and to end offshore jobs. none of this has turned out to be true. what happened instead, there was a massive wave of stock buybac buybacks. then we have another one for books at the tofolks at the topt
extent when they want to do so i see my friend smiling. but i've been advocating essentially over these years is pretty much what ronald reagan said he was for when he said there ought to be equal treatment for people with a wage and investment. i do have one. it would be grassley number four side-by-side. before i speak about my amendment, i don't know how many meetings senator wyden and i have had before we became the chairman of the finance
committee that every one of those meetings has resulted in our commitment towards a bipartisan solution. this is one where she and i have some agreement. so, my amendment, i want everybody to know that i agree that we want to maintain tax relief for low and middle income taxpayers but i disagree that we achieved that goal using massive tax hikes on higher income earners and american job creators. my amendment would ensure that low in the building, families continue to enjoy the significant tax relief provided by the tax cuts and the jobs act by making the tax relief permanent. our countries experiencing a remarkably strong labor market and a resurgent economic growth in the economy and workers wages because of the tax relief put in place in the last congress. unemployment has been at the
lowest rates but it's been almost 50 years. wage growth has accelerated. there are more jobs available than the number of people unemployed signaling increased opportunities for workers. the strength in the economy followed from tax reform and is directly benefiting low and middle income americans. >> how long do i have to respond to chairman grassley? the chairman is right we are working hard on a number of key areas in a bipartisan way particularly i think people understand the price gouging on prescription medicine and in fact the chair man and i are introducing a bill on the administration today that is also bipartisan. we do disagree on this im and truly reformed the tax code to
provide a genuine tax cuts to working families and the middle class by expanding the tax credit and earned income tax credit we would offset the cost by rescinding tax cuts to the top 1% and multinationals instead of having hundreds of billions to the deficit. so, there is a choice on this amendment and when we get to the time i would urge my colleagues to support my amendment as i respectfully say we shouldn't support the legislation further enriching the well-to-do at the expense of the working families and middle-class is just an area where the chair man and i have a disagreement, but i want to highlight all s also we are doia lot of bipartisan work, which is what we ought to be giving on things like stopping prescription price gouging which
is just decades overdue. >> is now a time i can ask for the bipartisan -- >> no, it is no not appropriatey agreed on a schedule. it will have to be later. >> i was not up on that, but i will respect your wishes. i didn't believe that it was the budget committee that a discussion set aside in consideration will resume later. senator harris.
>> i offer harris amendment number two to ensure middle-class families receive tax relief thereceivedthe tax rn order to cover expenses like child care and medical bills. the budget offered by my colleague extends the tax cuts to corporations and the top 1% on the back of the working and middle class american families struggling to make ends meet from month-to-month. in 2017 the federal reserve reported that top 1% in the country now owned nearly 40% of the nations wealth. while the bottom 90% owned 23%. the republican budget focuses on growing this imbalance between those at the very top and those that are working to three jobs to pay their bill. it would provide relief to those working harder than ever to put food on the table.
the budget cuts billions of dollars from programs eliminating housing assistance for almost 700,000 families across the country and cutting pell grants it doesn't line up with thwith the priority of worg people and families. i see instead we make a commitment to the middle-class and working people of our country and provide them with the relief they so desperately need to make ends meet. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment. >> any discussion in favor?
24% and 16 or two tenths billion dollars in payments were improper and it was over 28% and that would represent another billion dollars. so my amendment would ensure that the income families continue to get the significant tax relief provided by the jobs act by making that tax relief permanent. i urge my colleagues to support it. >> further comments in favor of the grassley amendment? >> i believe and agree that the goals are laudable. however, what it actually represents, and the analysis
suggests it would be to extend the tax giveaways to the corporations. corporations. if all of the expired provisions of tax cuts were extended to 71% of the benefits would go to the top 20% of taxpayers in 2026 with the top 1% receiving a total tax cut of $50 billion. there's $1 trillion more in tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthy by 2029 all at the expense of crucial programs that protect well-being and economic security for the middle-class families, so i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. thank you. >> those will be set aside for consideration later. next will be warner amendment
number one. am i going to be doing both of my amendment for just one. the first one may be easier than the second. i am offering a deficit mutual fund to support members and their families to make sure they have access to safe and healthy housing and this is cosponsored by my friend senator cain and senator harris and i think all of us have seen the problem once again the rise across the country with military installations we look back at the fact in the late '90s when we basically outsourced military housing to eight contractors for 50 year terms sometimes we may not have put as much processed for some of the contractors and we have seen repeatedly as evera
free member has an installation for the servicemembers living in homes with the enormous amount of rodents, carbon monoxide poisoning, and even had a service member spouse who was basically poisoned by carbon monoxide and the housing company told her to go back into that building before it was even fixed. our service members deserve better and we have seen a whole host of additional problem where spouses who are not on the leases don't get a chance to report back to the companies and i want to commend the members of the staff who brought in all of the surface heads as well as the eight companies this is a failure of management at the surface level and this deficit
digital fund would put us on record in terms of making these changes which we would all support. this is important and it's the military mismanagement so many of the servicemembers the thing that makes you the maddest if they reach out after the housing companies won't give satisfaction to the chain of command, and they were told we can't do anything about it. people don't enlist to the tenets of the would-be soldiers, marines, and it's their militaries job to fix this and this is one that should get bipartisan support. >> we also have a legislation that would try to put more teeth in this but i appreciate your consideration.
>> this is similar to an amendment filed by senator scott, and i applaud both senator warner and senator scott for the work to bring this issue to light and i will be asking my colleagues to support this and anyone else wishing to speak. anyone in opposition that one will be satisfied. i would like to get the same response i got from the last one. i don't know if we will see that come to pass, but this again is an amend that i've cosponsored and i thought senator cain cosponsored. those of us that have been here a while have seen in a number of shutdowns. the most recent at 35 days was
the most pointless but i've had to live through. i don't know many folks that would continue to show up five weeks and without pay and without a guarantee on the going forward basis. now we worry to make sure federal employees got their back pay that the budget has been put forward the administration has used the federal employees retirement accounts to offset that's why i offer this amendmena vote for thisamendmene senator cain would create a
scorekeeping rule prohibiting the congress from using increased contributions to offset spending elsewhere. as we discussed many times. i think it is on the comments yesterday going straight at federal employees retirement effecthepractice over the next t years which they are projected to run out and since 2010 we have raised employee contributions without additional benefits at retirement so i
think enough is enough federal employees deserve a lot better particularly with what they've gone through the last year and this year with the 35 day shutdown so i would hope that we would stop using them in a retirement fund as a budget pt bank the changes would think the system more financially stable and consistent with the private sector. i consistently object any of these and we have a disaster for just one tiny flaw that's called the harbor maintenance trust fund exception.
i agree with spending on anything remotely related, but there's a little profession that's when you spend it, it doesn't count. you can't do that. that's requiring a budgetary effect that is i think illegal but a couple words removed would make that work and this one again says that the budgetary effect of the changes would be a requirement of the scorekeepers and i don't think we are allowed to throw the scorekeepers keep score i think we should focus on protecting the system for the current future retirees and not pose unnecessary hurdles. we should do our best to reflect the cost of the legislative changes and i agree with senator
through the process reform later this year. with that i would oppose it. further discussion and opposition. >> that will be satisfied for consideration later. >> next, van hollen number three. >> i would ask if possible i switched the order of operating my amendment with senator merkley since he has to go somewhere. i think he supposed to be right after me. >> we did have an agreement to switch the two amendments. so i am an order after senator warner. this is one where senator johnson had a side-by-side warning he had to leave when you got here. >> i agree with the previous agreements in the amendment. i'm happy to have senator johnson offered a side-by-side
later or to make the case for him if he would like me to do so. >> i have a roomful of people that have been waiting for me to deliver a speech, so i am trying to be accommodating to the public. >> we are trying to be accommodating and get finished up here. go ahead. >> thank you very much. merkley amendment number two creates a reserve fund to stop the child separation of the border and expedite family reunification. i'm sure everyone realizes how for a sec the practice is. it's time that we send a message that this bothers us a great deal. the strategy inflicting trauma on children they will feel it for a lifetime, so let's just create a budget deficit, natural
reserve fund for the purpose of addressing this very important issue. thank you. >> what you like me to make my colleagues case for him? >> what is the balance of your time and if not coming yield back in opposition to the amendment this is almost into the area of legislation which would normally accept the parliamentarian significantly, but i don't think anybody in the room supports separating children from their parents exactly went through a decade of separating families and we have
the policy of enforcing the law of the people want to come to the country and need to follow so they are compassionate along with being fair to the american citizens and suggested a number of times we could pass immigration legislation if we did it in pieces at a time agreeing to do all the pieces apiece at the piece at a time if comprehensive. for the customs and border patrol apprehensions almost 600,000 people on the border, just as the fiscal year there've been almost 140,000 for the immigration and customs enforcement they are so overwhelmed with the result becomes a humanitarian crisis that follows and law enforcement must keep this part of the story in mind. any discussion on how to change the scenario needs to include
law enforcement both sides of the capitol and the administration and it will take all of us working together. we need to move beyond the politics and address the challenges facing the country. this budget i think is the first step in tackling those fiscal challenges. so, i would urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. senator johnson is on his way back. senator johnson number one. >> i'm assuming he's offered his amendment. >> you make your case in the absence of th the chairman didnt allow me to do so. >> principle i think the
amendment is not necessary. it's already the stated policy not to separate families and of those that were separated by an amendment simply says deficit neutral to provide the department with the necessary resources they don't have now because we are in a crisis to protect children and families i came from mating with secretary nielsen and we are past the breaking point and i do want to point out just the facts we have it on the screens every member has a chart that shows such a monetary increases. the example in 2014 we had 120,000 as unaccompanied children or members of the family in this country illegally and were apprehended and that meant president obama referred to that as a humanitarian
crisis. last year the number was 169,000 in less than the first six months we've had over 200,000. people come to this country illegally were now showing up at the portatthe ports of entry wit proper documentation we have now apprehended 400,000 per day. detention facilities at the homeland security had their disposal and were for single adults which used to be the problem in terms of immigration for the number of walls and the agreement has been reinterpreted to include together with the amendment that treat unaccompanied children when we treat children from mexico and canada where we cannot repatriate them or remove or return them and these individuals who are now in
america want to stay so this administration needs the resources to handle this growing crisis and anybody that says it's manufactured as there had so far in the sand i don't know how to resuscitate them. it's a huge problem from a growing problem and we need to address it through the department needs resources and we should prioritize the spending to do i it in a deficit natural way. >> it is an egregious practice it isn't about whether they arrive in the u.s. is how they are treated after they arrive in the u.s.. my colleagues suggested to do a resolution that addresses stronger border security that is a completely separate issue on which many of us perhaps all of us here at the table have support available funds for the
border security. despite my colleagues presentation, child separation is continuing even now the fourth and 200 additional documented cases. so, we are in a situation simply to save the sort of debate you asked for about the best way to go forward you should be -- you said we should go forward that is exactly what a deficit natural reserve fund is about. let us not turn our heads away from this egregious strategy of child separation but take a stance that this is morally reprehensible. >> providing that the source to protect the migrant children and families because of the
overwhelming system they don't have the time to determine is that the father or the sex trafficker, is that the child or the victim, so when we are separating children from an adult right now we ar we're doit to protect the child, and we don't have the resources to do that adequately so i am saying we need the resources to check children from traffickers. >> next is and how when number three. >> this is a very straightforward amendment that would establish a deficit neutral reserve funds relating to reducing the cost of prescription drugs. it doesn't do americans any good if we don't have a terrific drug out there and they can't afford
it. so, this calls upon the congress to create the fund to put in place different proposals that would reduce the cost of prescription drugs. if you look at the 2018 report, they found that between 2016 and 2017 retail prices were 267 brand-name prescription drugs increased by 8.4% after five years of double-digit average annual price increases. my colleagues and i especially on the democratic side put forward lots of proposals to address its issue. i know it's been a concern expressed by our republican colleagues. we had a good exchange yesterday about the fact that the united states we should be able to bring down healthcare costs and do it in a way that increases the quality of care, and i'm going to be for the remaining time and support.
>> i think that this is a fertile field for all of us that we hold that the healthcare industry primarily responsible for the fixing that we are in. i have four bills that simply states get with it, and brace transparency can help us bring costs down and if we don't, i know there are many other approaches that will solve it in another way and i'm glad s-sierra got three or four bills out there myself, but the challenge to the healthcare industry to take responsibility for the fix we are in, tackled health insurance companies ten years ago in my own business and not offering a product that is sustainable, transparent and serving most americans. i do support this amendment.
>> this can probably be taken by a voice vote. unless there is more discussion, that completes the list we were to do this morning were today. we can get a few minutes extra because we will come back and both will start the voting process so we can get out of here at a reasonable time. i appreciate the cooperation of everybody this morning and we are adjourned for lunch. come back so we can get started with a quorum for. [inaudible conversations]