Transcripts For CSPAN Senate 2018 Federal Budget - Part 1 20171007

I will remind the committee that as a result of the new five day rule, which was provided last week, only timely filed amendments will be in order. I want to thank both sides of the aisle for following that rule. I want to thank everybody for their operation for getting to this point. Members will be recognized for three minutes to explain their amendment. A member of post will be given two minutes in opposition. Decided,n we have there will be an additional minute just prior to those votes. As has been the practice of prior chairs, all amendments, other than complete substitutes, have to be offset over the years covered by the current budget resolution. Senate amendments will not be permitted. We know there are not any of those. We have consulted with the Senate Parliamentarian about amendments offered to make sure they do not risk status endangered to the resolution. Amendment would fund the resolution, i will will it out of order. Whenrs will be present votes take place in order for their vote to be tallied. Schedules meember there will be conflicts, so i will work with the Ranking Member to find convenient convenient times for stack of votes. I am planning on having us recess for lunch and vote approximately 1 30. Hopefully, we will be back by 2 30. As has been done by prior markups, i will offer members to debate in blocks of time and back votes on those rather day. Throughout the day. We will proceed to the consideration for the resolution of four amendment. Senator sanders, du have an amendment . Committee. Senator sanders, do you have an amendment. I do mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. As i think everybody doe knows,i believe in the people on our side believe that the budget being brought forth is one of the most unfair and destructive budgets ever proposed in the modern history of the country. It provides incredible tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country while it makes trillions of dollars in cuts to the needs of working people in terms of healthcare, medicaid, medicare, education of our mental protection. And in terms of programs that many people desperately need. Space on the robin hood principle in reverse. It takes from working people to give to millionaires and billionaires. During the coast of the debate we have excellent amendments that would address the Serious Problems of the republican budget. I will call up the First Amendment and that sanders limit number one. Is simple and straightforward, would establish a 60 boat vote budget point of order to prevent the top 1 of americans, people doing phenomenally well from receiving any future tax cuts. This is at a time of massive wealth and income inequality blessing we should be doing is providing hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to billionaires who dont need it. Today, the United States has more income and wealth inequality than any time since late 1920s. Incredibly the top one tenth of 1 owns is much wealth as the bottom 90 . Twenty individuals in america on us much wealth as the bottom half of our people. According to a recent study the top 1 now owns 39 of the nations wealth while the bottom 60 on just 3 . Since the wall street crash a decade ago, 52 has gone to the top 1 . This amendment is simple. Says that a time when the rich are getting richer, while so many people are struggling when we have a 20 trilliondollar National Debt, the last thing we should be doing is giving trillions of dollars of tax breaks to the 1 . So mr. Chairman i hope very much i hope we can pass this amendment. The Koch Brothers are the second wealthiest family in america, the trump family, multibillionaire trent family do not need tax breaks. You need to help them working families in the middle class, not the people on top. Thank you mr. Chairman. I oppose this amendment. The top 1 that are so often vilified at these Committee Meetings earn about 20 of the income earned in america and they fit pay 40 of all taxes paid in america. The purpose of this amendment would be to ensure the tax reform must ensure a prohibition that the people who pay 40 of income taxes must like it benefit. Thats the wrong goal. Heres what the goals are of tax reform as i understand them. Number one, lower the burden on middleincome families. Number two, to further elevate the standard of living of all americans by making it as competitive as possible. That will include things like addressing the high tax rates that even some of our democratic colleagues have advocated for. If you do properly its possible that somebody who is pain and that 40 of all income taxes might have some benefit. I dont think the American People are so resentful that they will forgo a higher standard of living and pay raise if they found out there someone whos wealthier than they are that might have a savings. I think the goal should be maximize Economic Growth, lower the burden on middleclass families, and not establish that 40 of income taxes paid have to be off the table. Will never be able to accomplish the more important goals. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Time has expired on the amendment. There three minutes equally divided. My time has expired for the amendment, the amendment is laid aside. Consideration will resume and if requested a recorded vote taken at the agreedupon set time. The next memo will be offered by senator kennedy. Thank you mr. Chairman. My amendment would establish a Deficit Neutral Reserve Fund to implement work for you claimants and all means tested that our welfare programs. It will not include Social Security or workmens comp. , but let me explain why think everybody should support this amendment. The American People are the most generous people in the world. We spend well over 1 trillion a year in state local programs helping those americans who are less fortunate than we are. In our country if youre hungry, we feed you, if youre homeless we house you, if youre too poor to be sick will pay for your dr. And im very proud of that principle, separates us from a lot of other countries in our universe. But, we all know that in order to maintain these programs to help those less fortunate they have to maintain fiscal integrity. The best way to maintain fiscal integrity is to help people who need that help get into a position where they dont need the help. After all those programs are meant to be bridges that parking lots. Its been my experience that the best social program is a job. Im not talking about throwing people on the cold, the Free Enterprise system in my experience has done more to lift people out of poverty than any social Program Government has ever imposed. Im not talking about requiring work from people who cant work. What i have in mind is saying to our fellow americans that if youre between the ages of 18 and 55, if you dont have any children and if you not disable, then in order to receive your benefits we would require you to work 20 hours a week and will help you get a job or go back to school for 20 hours a week or do Community Service for 20 hours a week. Im not talking about a mother with a sick child, im not talking about asking granddad to leave the nursing home. Im talking about helping folks get back on their feet. I think for that reason is something we can agree upon. That is that every american should have the opportunity to know the dignity of work and the dignity of being selfsufficient. And thats what my amendment would do. Senator kay. Im an offer a sidebyside on this, i agree with what senator kennedy said. The idea is to get people to work. Thats a goal. Twentyfive years ago i was governor we did a welfare reform program. During that time we reduce our roles by him staff. When we did it was not by arbitrary requirements but by providing supports necessary to help people to get a job. So it wasnt cliff, it was a rant. While we offered was better training, education, childcare and some support on healthcare. Thats what help you get back into the workforce. I proposed an amendment that said lets look at increased job training, childcare and Health Coverage that will make real the impulse behind your amendment. I dont think its necessarily consistent. Its just say lets look at the approaches. What you say is work requirement and i say its a king amendment number four. Is there any more time left . If hes offering his amendment has another minute. Perhaps the first time in World History that the senator doesnt need the extra minute. Thank you. I just wanted to offer some information and agree with the senator an illustration. We put in opportunities for people to work who are able to do that in terms of the snap program and understanding 80 goes to children, seniors and people with disabilities in our country. 80 is helping those who are not in a position to do this, because of the support senator king is talking about weve seen innovative work been done in states. I think weve seen a proven record. Will have time to respond to my friend. You two minutes. I remember when your governor, your fine governor let me try to explain gently why think my ways better. What i am proposing in this amendment was proposed by president clinton with respect to and it has worked, it has worked in every state, its worked because president clinton didnt approach it by being hardhearted, the purpose wasnt to throw anybody out in the cold, the purpose was to help people understand the dignity of being selfsufficient. Now, some people respond well to reason when they see the light, others need to feel the heat. My son is in the latter category. What i am proposing is a rule that just says if you want to access these programs in a healthy and dont have children and a relatively young, then you have to either work 20 hours a week, will help you get a job, look at the Labor Participation rate, if you dont want to work thats cool you have to go back to school. If you dont want to do that you do Community Service. It worked, president clintons idea worked we auto extended to all federal programs. Will proceed to the next amendment which is sanders memo number two. I call up sanders memo number two, this amendment is simple, straightforward, it simply creates a budget point. Medicaid or Social Security. As i think we know the republican budget provides 80 according to various studies 80 of the tax breaks will go to the top 1 . Thats 1. 9 trillion in tax breaks over ten years going to the top 1 . But this also makes massive cuts to medicaid, 1 trillion throwing 15 Million People off the Health Insurance they have in a massive cuts to medicare, 473 billion. Interestingly mr. Chairman, think everybody here remembers that when donald trump ran for president one of the tenants of his campaign was that he was a different type of republican and he was not going to cut Social Security, medicare and medicaid. On april 18, 2015 said and i quote, every republican wants to do big numbers Social Security, they wanted on medicare and medicaid we can to that. Its not fair to the people that have been painted for years. Now all of a sudden they want to be cut. So, you have a man running for president telling the American People snack and a cut Social Security, medicare and medicaid, we have a budget now that provides a trillion dollar cut medicaid and 473 billiondollar cut medicare. Mr. Chairman, the American People and the polls are clear. They do not want to see these important Healthcare Programs cut. 86 of republicans want to maintain or increase funding, with 95 of democrats also wanted to grow the program. The American People are united, they do not want to see Social Security card, that i want to say medicare cut or medicaid cut and thats a reason why trump got as many votes as he did. I would hope my republican colleagues will respect the wishes of their president. And make it clear that we will not support cuts to Social Security, medicare and medicaid. Thank you. Thank you. I do have to mention that creation of such a point of orders outside the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee, is the jurisdiction of the finance committee, and therefore its not part of the budget resolution. Language that exceeds that is not in order to come to Social Security, the Budget Committee is already out of that discussion. And if this provision since its extended to medicare medicaid, it will force it to be done through regular order. It provides reconciliation instruction to the Senate Finance committee to begin work on drafting fundamental tax reform. The work will focus on changes to the tax code not changes to Social Security, medicare medicaid. Any changes to these programs have to follow the regular order that already contains the hurdle on the floor for processing any such legislation. Says the path toward progrowth tax reform which will generate additional Economic Growth. One of the best way to support any reforms that congress can undertake in the future. I oppose the amendment and time has expired. Theres one minute left i guess. I like to put but push back on the work cut. To me cut his yearoveryear reduction rate of spending. Nursing reduction in the rate of growth. I heard during the debate that work in the medicaid. Over the next ten years obama care spending was telling 5. 6 trillion. Under here cassidy would be fivepoint less than 4 . It always increase. 2008 we spent 200 billion in medicaid. Were not cutting anything, were trying to reduce the rate of growth. Time is expired for debate on the amendment. Its latest side. Consideration will resume and if requested or rick courted a vote taken at the time. Thank you very much. This amendment would strike from the budget the most partisan process in washington, d. C. Using reconciliation, particularly for something where history shows successful tax reform needs to be bipartisan. This budget allows for at least a 1. 5 trillion tax cut that goes disproportionately to folks at the top and jamming it through. I listen to my friend talk about his concerns and i couldnt agree more. To add insult to injury, a vast colleagues to look at section 4111 which essentially means you could have no score on the bill at all before you vote, which once again seems inconsistent but senator simple sites have said senator corker yesterday, theyre concerned about. The reality is, we have gotten testimony in the finance committee that there is no magical growth very. Republican economists said that taxes dont pay for themselves. Yet stephen nation said the trump proposal would generate 2 trillion with the growth. Senator coates and i will we wrote our bipartisan bill we assumed that behavior does matter. A good bipartisan bill will generate revenue. Theres no way it will generate 2 trillion with. Its a particular mistake to use this process when this provision makes unprecedented changes like changing the passthrough provision which was set up for restaurants and grudges and cleaning services into a glide path for the wealthiest people to turn ordinary income into low rate is this income and avoid paying Social Security payroll taxes. So, help bill recognize the storied history of successful tax reform is to be bipartisan. I hope youll support this amendment that strikes reconciliation because its all about taxes in this budget and also about fairness. Things like the passthrough provision creates a grand canyon size loophole for folks at the top. I think its doing insults what pastors ought to be about which is helping our Small Businesses. Two minutes in opposition. Thank you. Lets be clear about what this purposes. Its to give her democratic colleagues veto power over tax reform. Fiftytwo republican senators, if we didnt have something so our Democratic People would like veto power. Theyve helpfully told us of when they are going to veto in the letter they circulated the summer were 45 senators sign stating among other things like quote, will not support any tax reform plan that includes tax cuts for the top 1 . Which takes us back to the argument of the First Amendment. So we are told in writing that our colleagues will veto any tax reform plan that has any relief for anyone in the category that pays 40 of all the taxes. Thats wrong goal. It puts a constraint for Economic Growth. Our goals are to ensure middleclass tax relief to maximize Economic Growth. What the budget read solicitous is establish a 51 boat threshold. Theres nothing about that that precludes will have a market. Any democrat can offer an amendment, they can participate fully when we get to the floor will have an open debate and by the way, we have other examples where the senate accepted to about thresholds including the confirmation anomalies. So mr. Chairman, i would urge colleagues to vote against this. Mr. Chairman, just to make a historical point that theres no inconsistency between bipartisan and reconciliation. The 2001 tax bill that we worked on was done during reconciliation. We had told democrat votes. I yield the floor. The consideration will resume mr. Chairman, i filed an amendment mark sanders number 11 and i ask unanimous consent that senator harris be listed as the primary sponsor that senator harris be recognized to offer the amendment. Thank you mr. Chairman. This budget cuts 473 billion from medicare. Nearly half a billion dollars at a time and too many seniors and people disabilities are struggling to make ends meet. It would restore cuts by reducing tax breaks on the wealthiest americans. 57 million americans really i am medicare including five and half million californians. Thats about one in six americans. The number relying on them is growing. Roughly 10000 boomers retire every day. The budget would cut medicare when more americans than ever rely on it. What is this budget cut medicare . It just so to pay for the same failed policies we seen in the past. By the Nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that approximately 80 of the benefit and the plan to go to taxpayers in the top 1 . Americans who rely on medicare are up late at night struggling to figure out how they will make ends meet. One third of chronically allamericans are forced to choose between having food to eat her medicine. Its not the time to medicare. This values the top 1 far more than it values the everyday american the everyday californian. Amendment fixes that it shows that we stand on the side of hardworking americans. Thank you. Medicare is a promise and people pay into this. We can talk about more later but we talked about 40 of all the income taxes the top 1 to the problem is they are getting 80 of the tax cut, 80 and the bottom rate is actually being raised for the lowest income people and on top of that their medicare is cut by almost 500 billion, not a great deal for certainly for people in michigan. The time has expired on that site. Think theres a sidebyside to be offered clarifying on sidebyside. It will be three minutes. We will offer that in than two minutes on the other side for opposition. Instead of six minutes. Senator gardiner. Thank you mr. Chairman to be clear the tpc, chairman Kevin Hassett described it in his speech recently as scientifically indefensible so lets give it clear that we should deal with facts. There seems to be plenty of fiction going around this morning and in view of the word cuts to bamboozle the American People into believing theres actually a cut going on. My children who are as, one of them is sixers old rose 3 inches in a year and i thought he was going to grow 4 inches i dont think that he shrank. What we see here in medicare with the Senate Budget proposal is the growth in medicare. Only in washington is a rate of increase, decrease in the rate of increase considered a cut. Defies logic to think that increasing 80 is actually a cut. You dont go to the barber to get a haircut and come out with your hair longer than it was when he came in. Thats what i think some people are trying to say is what happens. You go to the barber and you grow your hair longer. This simply makes no sense. Anyway what we are saying is lets protect medicare. This budget protects medicare. Lets put in place in amendment number for now sidebyside it would protect medicare and go even further the lets read repeal the independent payment Advisory Board through an independent payment Advisory Board went into effect seven years ago it had a bipartisan opposition. The board would give superpowers to cut medicare outside of congress and to make budgetary decisions in medicare without the approval of congress and have great power over congress so flew on to protect medicare repeal it and do something for seniors in trying to instead of trying to phoc the American People into believing and increases actually a good thing. Ive been remaining pro under kennedy . Mr. Chairman i appreciate my colleagues proposal. I think most reasonable people and i dont mean in this disrespect would oppose it. Nobody appear once heard medicaid that we have to be mindful of the costs of medicare and try to make it more efficient. Let me give you one quick example, 2012 dr. Donald berwick a harvard educated on under president obama said conference United States congress 10 of the money we are spending on medicare is going to the wrong people in being wasted. Thats not fair to the american taxpayer and not to the people on medicare. The time has expired or not positioned sidebyside. We go want to hurt medicaid. Not really cut of dollars. You have cut cuts medicaid by a trillion dollars, 50 Million People lose their Health Insurance. Senator johnson and others you tell those 15 Million People many of them may have cancer or Heart Disease lifethreatening illness. Its not a cuts we are just our you lost the Health Insurance you had. House republicans came up with pretty much similar in terms of cuts to medicare what this budget does. There is 490 billion but they are a little bit more specific. You know what they said . Lets raise the eligibility age for medicare to 67 years of age. Tell that worker who is now 65, 66 we are hoping to get medicare medicare. Tell them that thats not really a cut. Those are just numbers. They wanted boucher writes medicare over in the house so tell that older american who gets a check for 8000 who is struggling with a lifethreatening disease that goes to an Insurance Company and gets laughed out of the room we dont want to provide Health Insurance to an older person with cancer for a thousand dollars. These are cuts that will kill people. These are cut so her people and these are cuts that should not in a Humane Society be allowed to take place. Lets support senator harris amendment. Is their opposition . Seeing none that amendment will be laid aside and the recorded vote will will be taken at the great time. The next amendment is sanders amendment number 12. Mr. Chairman nye filed an amendment on the 12th i ask unanimous consent the senator stabenow be listed as the primary sponsor of the amendment and i and senator van hollen cosponsors and senator stabenow be recognized to offer that amendment. Thank you very much mr. Chairman. This would restore the 1 trillion in cuts to medicaid paid for by reducing the republican tax break for the wealthy. Let me indicate one more time, 80 of the tax cuts and proposals that have been released with go to the top 1 , an average of 200,000 per person and a tax cut which is more than most people in michigan make in a year and actually many low and moderate income working families. On top of that here we are again with a 2 billion in medicaid cuts. We just did this. We just had two different proposals brought or word twice rejected by the senate, trillion dollars in cuts. While this document doesnt specify exactly how the cuts would take effect we have a very good idea as senator sanders talked about and the Graham Cassidy Health Care Bill that was not supported. Thats also a trillion dollars in cuts. That doll ended the Medicaid Expansion in michigan we have cut in half the number of people using Emergency Rooms he cant pay. The state of michigan has more dollars, taxpayer dollars saved more than 35 million this year because they are not paying for it read 97 of our children and michigan canal c. A doctor. I dont want to see that jeopardized it would create a percapita to limit benefits reduce coverage and according to the Budget Office who may not want to listen to them are but we have traditionally listened to it would cost billions to lose their Health Insurance. This is incredible damage to it and it would cover right now in michigan over half the seniors meeting needing nursing home care are covered in this would dramatically decrease nursing home care help her children and medicaid is the first in fighting the opioid addiction. There are many reasons to support this amendment and mr. Chairman i know that senator van hollen wishes to speak so if its all right with you. I will yield my additional time to him. Thank you. I thank my colleagues senator stabenow and as she said we just ran this movie. This trillion dollar cut in medicaid was part of the Republican Health care plan and we got a congressional Budget Office estimate of the impact of that cut. Millions of americans would have their health care reduced and many of them would he put at great risk. I want to remind my colleagues when it comes to medicaid 60 of the funds go to the elderly and disabled. 80 are elderly disabled and children and yet there is going to be some growth in medicaid spending over time because medicaid will have to cover more seniors as the baby boomers id. People retire. Yes it is expected to grow over time but when you cut it you really do hurt people. Most people plan ahead when they see a tsunami coming in this budget actually eliminates important funds that will help people. C i want to encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment because this amendment would have the potential for increasing medicaid spending by more than a trillion dollars. I understand my colleagues are concerned about access to medicaid and i want to ensure that this program is for preserving Medicaid Program. Any action we take in the Budget Committee is not law. Takes additional profit to get their. Anything that is suggested in the budget would require an additional legislation and this is no exception. Federal spending on medicaid has more than tripled in the last 17 years increasing from 117 billion in 2002399000000000 in 2016. Expected to reach 650 billion by 2027 according to the congressional Budget Office. Their reason for the recent growth is the expansion that was included in obamacare which the cbo estimates will cost taxpayers a trillion dollars over the next decade and thats why the budget we are considering includes the natural reserve fund to repeal and replace including the most costly Medicaid Expansion. The status quo medicaid is simply irresponsible. There is no revenue coming in. Something has to give somewhere. Medicaid is the second largest expenditure in the state budget accounting for more than 20 of the spending in the 2016 according to the National Association state Budget Office. The controlling costs is essential to medic is preservation so we can provide relief for the state budget. The budget would modernize the program and put it on a more stable path. Furthermore while this resolution envisions progrowth tax reformer does not assume any specific detail for that plan through the budget does however embrace the principles behind the framework. That tax reform should not shift the tax burden from high income to lower income and my time has expired. The time for debate has expired. The amendment is set aside. Consideration at the agreed time. Senator harris. Mr. Chairman the Ranking Member sanders and colleagues i ask unanimous consent before senator van hollen to be added as a cosponsor big as a member venture were protecting middleclass families from unfair tax increases. This budget includes a reconciliation instructions that would increase the deficit by 1. 5 trillion over the next decade. Despite all of that it would do nothing to help our struggling middleclass. In the new report the Federal Reserve concluded that the top 1 now all nearly 40 of the nations wealth while the bottom 9 owned 23 . The republican budget focuses on this growing imbalance between the wealthiest americans and the rest. According to another recent report by the Tax Policy Center at the bottom 80 of households would receive only 13 of the tax cut in 2027. Most low and middle income households would likely lose more from the budget cuts than they would gain from the tax cuts. My amendment would ensure that no additional harm is done to people who are working harder than ever to put food on the table and provide for their families and secure quality education for their children. Lets give them a chance to retire with dignity. Congress has the ability to make the tax code work for the middle and lowincome families. Said republicans want to pay more in command of inequality and transfer more wealth to corporations even though one out of five corporations pays nothing inning come tax. The budget cuts 5 trillion to programs that working families desperately need. I hear from Californians Daily requesting that are housing a nutritional assistance programs at the republican budget eliminates Housing Assistance for more than 1 million families and nutrition assistance from nearly 2 million women infants and children. This budget does little for families and workingclass working class americans. I say we instead keep our commitment to lowincome and middleclass tax and protect them from tax hikes. Rich my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment. Does anyone else wish to speak in favor . Senator van hollen. Thank you. Thank you for offering this amendment. My friend senator toomey said the number one objective of this reform effort was to quote lower the burden on middleclass families. Thats what this amendment is all about. This just says as we go through this tax reform process lets not raise taxes on middle income families. There have been estimates out there already that suggest the proposal thats been put forward could raise taxes on as many as one third of middle income families. We know if you are lowincome senior around 10 tax bracket you are actually going to be paying more in taxes because the increase in the standard deduction does not offset the different deductions that seniors have over age 65 so is written it increases taxes on low income seniors. Lets not do that. Lets vote for this amendment. The sidebyside is being offered. Senator kennedy. Thank you mr. Chairman. I agree with a lot of my colleagues said. I want to offer a more aggressive proposal in my sidebyside amendment. Rather than just saying we are not going to raise taxes on middle income folks i think we have to say we would cut taxes. Now we talk about the middleclass. You could just as easily say working families and he could just as easily say is i often do ordinary people. Im talking about the people that senator sanders talks a lot about an senator toomey talks a lot about. The folks that get up every day and go to work and obey the law and pay their taxes and try to teach their kids morals and tried try to save them a little money for retirement and try to do the right thing. But they are angry mr. Chairman and the genesis of a lot of the anger in america in my opinion is we have too Many Americans who are not participating in the right wealth of this country. Not spiritual and not culturally and not economically. I hear it every single day and i said this yesterday but everybody has left so ill say it again without warning you. People tell me everyday in my state, they say kennedy heres the problem. We have too many undeserving people at the top giving bailouts into many undeserving people at the bottom getting handouts and we are in the middle and we get stuck with the bill. We campaign anymore. Our Health Insurance is gone up in our kids tuition has gone up and our taxes have gone up but ill tell you what hasnt gone up kennedy they tell me, our income. These are people who struggle every day but they are smart. They understand that the Median Income today is the same as it was a 1999 so i agree with you. We have to help them and i believe this amendment will do it. That was only two minutes so there are still two minutes. Two minutes in opposition. Senator sanders. Lets be clear with. Senator harris amendment would require 60 votes to raise taxes on the middle class so we have a republican budget that says its okay to give 80 of the tax break almost 2 trillion to the top 1 and yet 30 of people earning between 50 and 150,000 would have to pay more in taxes. That is absurd. You dont give huge tax breaks to billionaires and then force middle income americans to pay more in taxes. I strongly support senator harris efforts. While the amendment to my colleague i will say that the problem we have is a country right now is americans are already distrustful of their government. They feel we did not keep our words and we did not keep her promises. The problem with the amendment offered by my comment is it reads may. Not shell, not will, in may. May is not a process. And to keep our promise to the working people of this country me to follow through and understand people sitting at the table every night concerned that they are not going to make ends meet. Made is not enough to them. Is there discussion of the opponents side of the sidebyside . Seeing none the amendment is laid aside in consideration and recorded vote will be taken later at an agreed time. This is sanders number nine. I file an amendment numbered nine and ask unanimous consent that senator king be listed as a primary sponsor of that amendment warner and came to listed as cosponsors and senator king be recognized to offer the amendment. Without objection. Mr. King. This amendment is the essence of fiscal responsibility and simply reinstate a rule that was a rule from 2007 until the 2016 budget resolution. It simply says reconciliation instructions cannot create or add to the deficit or diminish a surplus. This is called the conrad rule. This is the rule here and it just seems to me this is sort of common sense. Everybody talks about worrying about the deficit. Why shouldnt we be able to object to provisions that do in fact and will in fact add to the deficit so thats the essence of the amendment. Its nothing new. This was the rule here for some 10 years and it should continue to be the rule and perhaps it would help us get out of this deep hole that we are in. Thank you. Senator whitehouse. Mr. Chairman this was really why the Budget Committee was formed and is senator byrd was in at the creation of this told us when he testified i guess in 2009 before the committee, if you are going to use reconciliation, not to be ripped to reduce the deficit. Thats what the whole purposes. Unfortunately the conrad rule got repealed and now reconciliation has become a freerange chicken that could run wherever the majority wants it to and basically just us up regular order in the senate for whatever the pet issue is of the majority. That chicken is loose from the cage and its going to cause nothing but trouble in the years ahead. Its an invitation to the worst incentive pay for the absolute partisanship that we have seen two driver peel and replace and now the tax cuts to the rich and i dont think it does us any good if the body. Its yet another signal of how ineffectual and insignificant this committee has to come that we are now in the states were literally the only thing that makes a difference that we do is reconciliation. Nobody gives a hoot about her budget. They need 60 votes for lowering the budget. Thats why budgets are a joke. The one thing we do is to let it loose running around for anything anytime now you guys are having to deal with it. One day it will turn and we will be the ones having fun with it and we will be having our freerange chickens running around dodging regular order in the senate and breaking up a partisanship. So i support senator kings amendment and im proud to be cosponsored. Senator toomey. Mr. Chairman its not exact a freerange chicken. What the instructions are designed to do is to give us the opportunity to design a tax code that will finally allow our economy to achieve the kind of growth that we are capable of not this 2 growth we have been living with for all these years. Lets look at exactly what these reconciliations instructions contained. Says that the dollar amount that will be permissible is 1. 5 trillion as measured against current law and using the static score of any future tax bill. First of all as we all know the current law is not the most relevant in consideration because we have current policy that we increase every year. Current policy and tax cuts that get it stand it. You take that into account thats 5 billion over 10 years so what we are really talking about is permitting a tax reform bill that will be statically scored as 1 trillion less revenue. Now the static score of a trillion dollars is actually a very small amount. Its 2 of the federal revenue rigid expected to collect over the next 10 years and its my strongly held view that if we do this tax reform right this is not going to increase the deficit come is going to shrink the deficit because mr. Chairman it would take less than portenza 1 of Stronger Economic growth in response to tax reform properly done and senator wyden acknowledged tax reform properly done does lead to Economic Growth. A mere 410 of a of greater growth and we would more than fill in the chilean dollar hole so the fact is this gives us the headroom the ways means and finance to draft the kind of tax reform that will allow americans to achieve a higher standard of living that theyve been waiting too long to achieve and this is the mechanism that lets us get there. Im very confident well be able to do it and decrease the deficit in the process. The time has expired for the young amendment. Senator stabenow. Thank you mr. Chairman and before offering my amendment i want to say a little rebuttal to my friend from pennsylvania. We have a finance committee a number of days ago where we asked the republican and democratic witnesses to tax cuts pay for themselves . Everyone said no and theres no evidence in history of that. There just isnt traded sounds great and i wish it really did happen but what we have seen in our country is deficit as a result of doing tax cuts particularly the tax cuts that dont go into the pockets of middleclass families or Small Businesses or companies that are making things here in america. Therefore it doesnt turn around via kona me. That leads to an amendment that i have that would created budget point of order against any legislation that would give a tax cut to companies and ship my job overseas. I know we do this around the world and we have companies that do this around the world that we have seen over and over again companies that close up shop to take basically a race to the bottom on wages and shipped jobs overseas. I dont think we should be helping a rewarding them for doing that. I am all for tax cuts for middleclass families, Small Businesses companies that are creating good paying american jobs. I think if we really want to do tax reform we should be closing the loopholes that in fact are incentivizing or allowing companies not to venture get their fair share but also to benefit the tax code that allows them to ship jobs overseas. I think we should all agree that if we want tax reform for companies that are creating jobs here in america and the 50,000 americans who have had their jobs sent overseas last year should not have to pay the cost to their tax bill of giving companies a big tax cuts who are in fact shipping their jobs overseas. I will speak on this one because this amendment creates a point of order against legislation by another committee that lowers the taxes for certain companies. The budget resolutions reckoned reckoned reconciliation does not specify the policies or the provisions being reported out of committee. They did release their tax reform framework last week. I wish they wouldnt have because theres a whole process that they have to go through after we finished. Not before we finish. They are inviting a bipartisan procedure on it. Im hoping that works out that the framework includes International Tax reform that would incentivize companies to invest domestically and create jobs in the United States and put them in a position where it could be more valuable for them to work in the United States to go overseas. One of the reasons we have people buying up come reason the United States is they dont have two pay the same kind of foreign tax and they use a 30 advantage of buying up an American Company company. So this resolution, the reconciliation resolution powers of finance committee to draft tax reform legislation that will contribute to strong Economic Growth and allow many of our constituents to join in the workforce so as to participate in the american dream. It doesnt specify how to do that. Anything that has been put out so far is not the final bill either. There will e. In the committee who will have a chance to work on it there. Many of us on this committee or on that committee as well. The creation of this point if orders outside of the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee and not appropriate for inclusion or resolution. It exceeds our jurisdiction and threatens the privilege of the resolution so it wont be in order. My time has expired so it is being laid aside. Senator king. Thank you mr. Chair. I am pulling a committee 129. This is a sign to save some embarrassment i really believe. For those who havent memorized it on page 80 section 4111 is that innocuous provision. Says repeal a certain limitations section 532 s. Con. Res. 1114 for fiscal year 2016. Thats what it says. It sounds innocuous. You go to a to what is repealing is the requirement the previous requirement that the cbo score be posted on line 20 hours in advance of voting on any legislation coming out of reconciliation. Why would we want to take away a posting on line of the cbo score . Why would they not want to note the cbo says about something before we voted why would we not want the public to know before we both . I would ask consent to add senators warner king and harassed as cosponsors on this throughout my amendment would do with reinstate the 24hour crime rate extended to include amendments to the nature of a substitute. If theres an amendment substitute is dropped on the floor there has to be a 28 hour posting before we are asked to vote on it. Common sense would save us from embarrassment. I would like to ask senator harris if she would like to weigh in. Senator harris. Thank you senator kaine. Im cosponsoring the memphis employs the type to leave the senate has a fundamental duty to know what we are doing and how would affect the people we were elected to represent to the Republican Congress in 2015 agreed to that waiting period and between the ceos official concept and a vote they agreed it was the right thing to do. He remains the right thing to do. This time provide our offices the chance to grapple with the consequences of a bill before deciding how to vote in that perry has proven invaluable even just recently. That is what allows lawmakers to realize that the socalled skinny repeal of the Affordable Care act should not pass because it would have kicked 60 Million People off of their Health Insurance. We are elected to do the work of the people. We are elected to do the work with the Peoples Trust in mind and it is only responsible that we would do all Due Diligence before voting on any policy to know the impact its going to have on the people who are out there expecting that we have them in mind when we make these decisions. Thank you. Mr. Chairman i eagerly await the republican response as to why the American People should not know the implications and the consequences of their legislation and why for the first time cbo should not be allowed to issue a report analyzing what is in the bill. Thank you and im eager to respond to that. The congressional budget act itself empowers the Budget Committee chair as quirky brand that role i will always appreciate the candor that the congressional Budget Office provides and in fact since becoming the chairman 2015 the Budget Committee has always discharge his responsibilities with scores in hand. This was important to know the budget resolution is not a law. What we are doing today is not a lie because its not a law can supersede or replace any statutory provision. The congressional budget act is a law and provides the rules of the office must follow when estimated impacts the proposed legislation. The proposed amendment tends to make significant change to section 402 of the budget act which should only be accomplished by regular order and legislation which is at the present time and i hope we do some budget reform thing so that this can be a more effective committee. That would be an appropriate time to do that. Our resolution doesnt strike an experimental requirement the cbo has to make available these 28 hours before consideration. It did not function effectively nor did we find the need to ever employ it so i oppose this amendment and ask my colleagues to do the same because our important work cant function without it and it can be considerably due but you are form in the budget control act. There is still sometime available if anyone wants to speak. 21 seconds. Knock yourself out. Is this amendment will be set aside. Senator warner. Thank you mr. Chairman and id like to bring up the amendment number one. I like senator kaines amendment that i would hope at some point we are somebody from the press would go back and look back when democrats were in the majority and when all of these exact arguments around the importance of keeping the deficit under control, deficitneutral, financial guardrails. Read the bill before you vote on the bill were all absolutely made by members of this committee who sat in the minority. If we would adhere to what we said in prior times and the same perhaps could be said for us in that sense my amendment is based again on the use of the cbo. As legislators we often disick reabout policy goals and desired outcomes but we have always agreed on a common set of referees and we have fun with read on the joint committee of taxation and the congressional Budget Office should tell us how much a piece of legislation costs and it shouldnt go to the executive branch or some thirdparty think tank that i dont believe we should look around for alternative facts and the alternative faxing to be popular these days. This amendment and i know the chairman has the ability to choose whatever methodology would require the estimates budgetary effects for legislation provide. Be prepared using the cbo baseline for. Under the bounce budget act and the deficit control act of 1985. Cbo conforms to the principles we have defined of not changing the baseline could the rokoff to the tax bill. As for my colleagues voted in favor of this amendment and we remind them many of them citing the cbo and useful tool in previous arguments when the majorities were reversed. Are there further comments . Seeing none, two minutes in opposition. Senator grassley. This amendment would strip the chairman of this committee to the ability to determine the budgetary effects of legislation legislation. So obviously i would urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. This amendment takes away the power from the Budget Committee chairman, an elected member of this body to determine the budgetary effects of legislation legislation. Instead the amendment places the chairman scorekeeping authority with the congressional Budget Office. Cbos work is very very important. We review its work carefully and we all appreciate the staffs hard work. That being said the law is very clear section 312 per in a of the budget axes in forcible budgetary levels quote shall be determined on the basis of estimates made by the committee on the budget. That then is the responsibility of the law placed in the hands on the committee is no accident. The chairman is accountable to the people of the state that elected him and his colleagues in the way that we approve congressional chairman and its bad accountability that ensures that whoever is chairman takes the responsibility seriously and behaves appropriately. Therefore in the name of accountability and the defense of the budget act i oppose this amendment and i urge my colleagues to do the same. Further comments . The amendment will be set aside for a later vote. Next amendment is for number two. This one im actually very anxious to hear the rebuttal because this committee has put in place a series of fiscal guardrails over the years to prevent congress from enacting legislation that dramatically increases our deficit and debt. One such guardrail that began many members of the majority used rail against budget imposed during the last administration. Someone who spent a lot of time trying to wrestle with their debt and deficit i know its a challenging guardrail but i think a good one and that guardrail is called pay as you go or paygo a rule which dictates any tax cut be paid for with corresponding tax increases or cuts in mandatory spending. Unfortunately this budget exempts tax reform legislation from paygo effectively saying we are not going to pay for tax cuts. Additionally this budget exempts tax legislation from the point of order established back in 2010 which prevents legislation from dramatically increasing shortterm deficits. If there is one thing that i think all economists are clear left, right, center, middle you name it, tax cuts pay for deficit spending is a really, really bad idea and again i should do more research and been able to quote many of the members of the majority who made that point repeatedly from 20,822,016. Studies show tax cuts had to the deficits are worse for roads over the long run. Those that are paid for and can actually reduce growth over time time. Any lawmaker who votes against this amendment says they support of paying for tax cuts should also have to explain why adding to the National Debt is a good idea. Thank you mr. Chairman. Speaking in favor . Time is you but back. In opposition mr. Strange. Thank you mr. Chairman. This committee is serious about providing a framework for real tax relief i urge my colleagues not to support this amendment. We are serious about progrowth package which i think we are the only way to get there is to allow for increased Economic Growth to drive higher revenues. This amendment would tie the hands of the committee and adjusting budget rules. Budget rules alone do not provide the kind of economic drivers and compress it tax relief. The budget rules also do not accommodate tax extenders enjoyed bipartisan support that covered 160 billion gap between current law. This amendment goes even further by striking our ability to waive shortterm deficit points of order essentially admitting it does not intend to facilitate the tax relief my constituents so desperately need. Getting any meaningful release across the baseline working americans will require adjustments to the budget. Now this is a goal we all support. Each of these pieces of tax relief is adjusting budget rules. Some test for how committed to Economic Growth next era for the Senate Finance Committee Beginning its work and her colleagues offering amendments and participating in that process. Meantime i urge my colleagues to this amendment. Further comments . That amendment will be set aside in next to van hollen number three. Thank you, thank you mr. Chairman. Again we have heard that the two Top Priorities for tax reform are number one, to provide middleclass families with some relief and number two, to make our tax code as competitive as possible. A lemonade in the estate tax for the richest families in the country accomplishes neither of those goals. I just want to give people the sense and i dont know if we have a chart up there about what this does but only two out of 1000 estates, or people paying his days old pay the estate tax and thats because for individuals state tax doesnt kick in until 5. 6 million and for couples at around 11 million. Any state below those levels is entirely exempt. Dont pay a penny in the estate tax and yet this budget has a tax clause that would propose increasing the debt by 240 billion over 10 years or cutting medicare or medicaid. I heard the chairman say we dont have enough revenue for those things. If you take away 240 billion or two out of every 1000 estates you will not have enough money for other priorities. So bloomberg and the types of folks who benefit like the Walton Family could take tens of billions of dollars. According to bloomberg and i believe thats a trusted source for the majority members of this committee they say the estate tax would save President Trumps estate between 564 million 2 billion. The 2 billion number is if you take the president at his word and what he says but the point is that whether its President Trump or other incredibly wealthy people, giving them a windfall i would say that Teddy Roosevelt would be and i would like to submit a vote from Teddy Roosevelt who essentially said that we dont want to create an aristocracy in america. We dont want to create a permanent dynasty and america and yet that is what this republican proposal would do. Lets make it clear this doesnt help the middle class is not going to help Economic Growth. Its only going to add to the debt and deficit so lets just tell the American People that we are not going to provide this giveaway at a time where also talking about cutting significantly from education and other important investments in our future. The time has expired. In opposition senator gardner. Thank you mr. Chairman and i oppose the amendment. Uncle sam has us coming and going in the United States. The taxi when youre going out of life in a taxi when youre in life and the most unfair tax principles that we could be dealing with here. I dont think farmers and ranchers in colorado ready for states think that they are part of an era stock or see. Theres a big challenge that we face. If you live in Western Areas of colorado and you are blessed with a sale valley were your past life maybe you have had that land in your family for 100 years and all of a sudden that land goes up in value and guess what happens . People have to make a choice. Do they keep the operation or decide to subdivide it or sell it . Did they decide to turn what once was open space in 236acre mansions . The choice is clear. 72 of cropland todays higher in value then it was, 2 higher than it was a decade ago. These are people with ill liquid assets and have the choice of breaking up their farm or ranch. I think if we are going to have good tax policy in this country we need to move forward with their budget resolution. If we pass this bill and a tax policy that provides opportunities for middle income families in america we lose the opportunity to keep american jobs here and keep america profiteer instead of overseas in Median Household Income will increase by 4000. Thats the plan we have to pass and i hope it gets bipartisan support for this and start by the death tax. Just because you die its a taxable event. Think of people in this country agree with it. If you look at the chart youll see its not the middle class. C the time has been expired so with it will be set aside. Before we turn to the next amendment and want to update colleagues on how we agreed to proceed. We will continue to have amendments called up and debate until we break at 1 30 to 1 30 1 30 we will have lunch into and do a roll call vote on the senate floor and reconvene at 2 30 and continue to offer amendments for debate. My staff is working with the Ranking Member staff and began a. Votes around 3 15 p. M. So make sure your schedule is are aware and up at that point by 3 50 in the afternoon. Following that series of votes we will resume consideration of other amendments and with that plan to arrange another. And hopefully be in a position for final passage. K. Number four. K. Number forwards his Committee Amendment number 131 pertains to section 30002 which is on page 51 paragraph section in the chairmans mark says that this establishes the deficit and reserve fund to allow for later adjustments in the budget to accommodate fasttrack tax cut legislation pursuant to this reconciliation. The designation is deficitneutral however could pave the way for achieving deficit neutrality by dropping the tax revenues and dramatically cutting all kinds of other programs. My proposal is really simple. This whole process is about tax reform. Thats what its about so lets instead of saying it has to be deficitneutral lets say at a minimum it has to be revenueneutral and that way we are not achieving the neutrality by cutting taxes and cutting expenses. What i do is really simple. Its just changing the deficit neutrality requirement to a requirement that the legislation with being revenueneutral over fiscal years 2018 through 2027. Further comments in favor to ask two minutes in opposition. Thank you mr. Chairman. I think the problem with this amendment is that it could have, first of all i think its unnecessary and secondly i think it could have unintended adverse consequences. First of all Social Security cant be but the Authority Budget law. Our government could this reconciliation protection of subsequent tax reform medicare and medicaid is tax reform that we are trying to do. Here is one of my concerns about i assume unintended consequences of this amendment if it were to be enacted. My understanding for technical reasons that frankly are pretty complicated but my understanding is if we made this change that might preclude the tax reform including refundable tax credits and refundable tax credits for this thats an expenditure. I think that requires us to use the word deficit in this context. We dont want to preclude the possibility of increasing refundable child tax credit. That its probably an important part of the middle class working family tax relief that we want to provide. The second thing is i think it would preclude us for taking into account the fact that Stronger Economic growth by itself will tend to diminish certainly medicaid. If you made no changes whatsoever to medicaid available funding, allegedly the rules reimbursement rules or anything else just a stronger economy with more jobs and higher wages might mean fewer people would need to be on that and that is something you ought to be able to take into account. Im afraid this amendment could get in the way of both of those items so i would urge opposition mr. Chairman. That amendment will be set aside for a later vote. Senator sanders number 25. Mr. Chairman i filed sanders amendment number 25 i ask unanimous consent that senator be listed as a primary sponsor them in the niv listed as the cosponsor and senator murphy be recognized. Thank you mr. Chairman. This would create a deficit Nature Reserve Fund that would create jobs by investing in trillion dollars to rebuild our tumbling infrastructure paid for by closing tax loopholes that incentivize corporations to shift jobs overseas. This supports two of the goals of President Trump has often advocated for, rebuilding americas infrastructure and keeping American Manufacturing jobs in america. Therefore it merits the support of every member of this committee. Further comments in support . In that case i would say this amendment would create a deficit natural reserve by increased infrastructure problem programs by unspecified tax increase. Thats the job of another committee. I believe the majority of my colleagues in the senate are adjusted and enhancing american infrastructure. According to World Economic forum United States ranks 12th in the overall infrastructure. Our roads are congested and our Water Systems are failing and we have tens of thousands of bridges that are structurally deficient. Two years ago congress in the previous demonstrations agreed upon a multiyear Transportation Initiative that received resounding bipartisan support from both chambers and now the is spurring efforts on infrastructure and transportation which will involve all stakeholders. Transportation should need to forgo our prior commitments nor preempt new conversations with this amendment really must address these issues in a logical fiscally responsible manner which is why the budget resolution in goods to separate deficitneutral reserve funds to both improve our nations infrastructure and reform our tax code. I believe these issues should be dealt with separately. The tax reform ideas contained in this amendment may have merit if they should we do within the context of tax reform as to the specific acts that offset infrastructure and transportation spending. These tax policies arent related to transportation and Infrastructure Spending and move further away from the user pays principle which until recently has been used to provide dedicated revenues for surface transportation projects. We are is kept as separate and had separate our tax codes are complicated and archaic and their current structure frustrates American Workers and pushes american businesses overseas. The budget resolution assumed the tax writing committees will adopt a tax reform proposal that reduces marginal rates and broadens the tax base to create a fairer efficient progrowth tax regime that is revenueneutral. Islet over to their work. For these reasons i would urge my colleagues to berkeley number two. Thank you mr. Chairman to that like to create in order to allow for we will try that again. Mr. Chairman this amendment would create a point of order that allows for a decrease in taxes on citizens earning over a Million Dollars per year a condition that is only there for the wealthiest and very wealthiest americans. Speaking of which the top 1 of the republican tax plan would see an average tax cut of 200,000 apiece and for the top. 1 it would be over a Million Dollars per person. An average family with children would see their taxable income, their taxes increase by thousands of dollars. We dont want to be in this position do we in which we are basically making life harder for the middle class will giving away the National Treasury increasing the deficit for the richest americans . We should all be united in promoting and supporting this amendment. Comments in favor . Seeing none i will begin the two minutes of opposition. Creation of such a point of order is outside the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee. Its therefore not appropriate for inclusion in the budget resolution. Language that exceeds jurisdiction threatens the privilege of the resolution and is not in order. The committee knows the budget resolution outlines congressional budgeting and allows her committees the power to craft detailed legislation to carry out their goals. This resolution, the resolution empowers the finance committee to move legislation that would significantly enhance our countrys Economic Growth, create circumstances for a durable economy and supports the ability of americans to work, save and plan for the future while keeping americas premier role as a leading economy of the world. This point of order would restrict the ability of the finance committee to fully explore and propose changes to underlying law and to accomplish our goals on behalf of all americans. Prejudges the outcome of the finance committees work and that ultimately the entire senate once committee completes action. Any other comments . Seeing none the amendment is laid aside. The next amendment is that the now number a. Thank you mr. Chairman. I would hope they would be an amendment that would have could all support given the comments from colleagues that the cuts in the budget resolution on medicare isnt really a cut, so if thats the case then i think we should be very clear that structurally medicare wont be changed with the almost 500 billion in cuts in the budget resolution. This would simply put a budget point of order against medicare which i know is a great worry for the seniors in michigan and for people across the country. 47 million americans seniors and people with disabilities depend on medicare, 2 million in michigan. As i indicated, this project thats 73 billion from medicare and that isnt a cut. If thats the case, if thats the case then we should absolutely stay to the seniors that we will not support changing the structure of medicare because what you call the vouchers is what has been talked about in the house. Eligibility changes or price support, the result is the same. We hear from republican colleagues proposals to dramatically change the program in a way that threatens seniors benefits, benefits they have earned. So if we are trying to improve the program and reduce costs, the first thing someone should not want to do is reduce coverage for seniors, to take away the security of the program presents for the seniors and families who love and care for them. So theres a lot of other ways we can reduce costs. By negotiating Prescription Drug prices, that would be a great way and it wouldnt hurt seniors. It would actually help them. But right now in this bill, we have an unspecified cuts to medicare of 173 billion. As we talked about before, huge tax cuts. 82 of all of the tax cuts are not the top 1 , and a threat to seniors of a restructuring of their Health Care Programs that they have been counting on. So i would hope this is a simple amendment that we should not restructure or create vouchers under medicare with this budget resolution. Thank you, mr. Chairman. This amendment, of course, is not in order because it creates a point of order against legislation in another committee. Amendments specifically prohibit consideration of an email that would include that committee that has jurisdiction that we dont have. We have now seen this amendment filed in many different forms, but every single version with politics in mind. The democratic colleagues want to find a way to make the false accusation that somehow through this, republicans are cutting medicare. Let me be clear the budget we puput forth doesnt cut medicar. The spending increases every year. We only slow the rate of growth potentially if the committee of jurisdiction chooses to do that. Under the resolution, medicare spending increases every year growing at an average rate of 6 increasing 82 over the tenyear window. Ten year window. Our budget doesnt cut medicare. It slows the rate of growth if the committee of jurisdiction chooses to do that. Under the baseline, the spending averages 7 . It is outside the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee and inside appropriate inclusion in the budget resolution. Language that exceeds threatens the privilege of the resolution and isnt in order. Its not a conservative think tank for every dollar paid in the trust fund 3 would be paid out. Over the next 30 years, the ultimate fiscal scenario would be about 39 trillion which is a pretty big chunk of the 138 so this is simply unsustainable. Reducing the rate of growth would be a modest amount and it just begins to address the enormous challenge we have in the fiscal challenge. The structure of medicaid or medicare is simply unsustainable. If i might say first of all, we can come together and say we are not going to privatize as a part of this process and second, if you believe those numbers, then we ought to be putting their dollars in to keep seniors in medicare rather than the tax cuts to top percentage. The top percentage. That amendment will be satisfied. The next one is number ten. Mr. Chairman, colleagues, the budget has a reserve fund appeal or replace in the Affordable Care act and this amendment would strike that reserve fund. The American People have seen this bad movie before and they dont like it. Yet it keeps coming back. This is the latest effort to take away Affordable Healthcare from the American People. My colleague here, senator graham who i like very much, my cosponsor of the old reform bill look what happened at the last hearing. Senator cassidy came in and said we are going to protect people with preexisting conditions. All the experts said no youre not. Those costs for those people are going to go up. Senator cassidy said that they are going to get help so lets turn to the Cancer Society because those are the people with the backs applicant senator cassidy and say you are not protecting people with preexisting conditions. So it seems to me we ought to be saying no to slashing medicaid and to the approach that will hurt people with preexisting conditions and go back to the kind of bipartisan sort of effort like we saw in the Previous Congress senator graham and i were part of. We know that there are members here that want to work in a bipartisan way. If we are going back to repealing and replacing the Affordable Care act commits the same bad movie weve seen and if people do not like it then i would urge the colleagues to support this amendment. After speaking in favor of the amendment. [inaudible] you have on you have one minute and seven seconds left. I thought you were trying to share your time. If we are working then there would be no Graham Cassidy and we wouldnt be down to one exchange in south carolina. If it were working we wouldnt have a 31 increase in premiums last week. This is not working and i have seen no effort on the other side to do anything but to tinker with it. My goal is to repeal and replace the same amount of money and giving it back to the states in a fair way theyve got to spend it on healthcare. There is many different ways to deal with these illnesses, not one i can tell you right now obamacare is going to fail and somebody needs to do something about it if you take this out of the budget it is to come up with flexible alternatives to obamacare. I do know this come if you keep this amendment any efforts to have the flexible Affordable Health care will be lost in the time that we need them more and not less. We know each other too well. Senator graham and i know how important it is to be bipartisan. This doesnt do that. It is a snapshot and say that it it would cut medicaid a trillion dollars over ten years. Lets remember who gets medicaid. Four out of ten seniors are a big part of the Medicaid Program essentially covers older people who need nursing home care. They will have a lot of older people and their families not being in the position to afford care. Thats what our independent auditors says is this what caused thwould cutthe bill thate the next effort and repeal and d replace and it would cut a trillion dollars for the services that we need for people. Theres two parts to Graham Cassidy. Medicaid reform because it is unsustainable. If you want to preserve medicare you need to reform it before it takes the entire federal budget down with it and when you take medicare and medicaid combined, that is all for a revenue that will be staying on the programs. For the Sustainable Program is flexible when it comes to obamacare dollars it doesnt give 35 of the money to the states it doesnt even fashion. The block grant to apply to medicaid. Senator wyden has seven and a half seconds left. I think that you just used it. [laughter] senator sanders number 34. The reserve fund is to allow for the constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and reform the broken Campaign Finance system on moving towards the public funding. Mr. Chairman come in my view of the republican budget theater discussing today is heavily absurd and gives massive tax breaks to the wealthiest in this country. It makes horrific cuts and forces about 30 of middleclass families to pay more in taxes and allows for the massive cuts in education for nutrition and environmental protection. Why would anybody want to push a proposal budget like this i think it has to do with an article that appeared on june 26 in the guardian newspaper. At the weekend retreat attended by at least 18 elected officials, they warned that most notably the tax care reform through congress. It is the legislative progress to get obamacare repealed and replaced and tax reform passed and open it back up. They said that the policy and politics is between 300 million to 400 million. A few minutes ago we talked about the estate tax and in my view the absurdity of giving tax breaks tens of billions of dollars to the family, the coke brothers family. Five of the richest families in the country stand for 135 billion if the estate tax were repealed. Theres huge amounts of money into Campaign Contributions and other mechanisms. The families had given a been at 50 million to groups that fight for the reversal of the estate tax and for other tax breaks that go to the rich. We need fundamental reform of the corrupt campaignfinance system. Billionaires shouldnt be allowed to die the political process in the United States. And i would ask the lord for this amendment. Senator grassley. Senator sanders is going to laugh at me for opposing the amendment because they come from my town and he gets the biggest crowd of any politicians. Im going to oppose this amendment. It is an attack on the freedom of speech and guaranteed that the First Amendment and reaffirmed with a famous Supreme Court case, Citizens United. Now, heres what i want to challenge senator sanders with. We have a longtime lawyer for the American Civil Liberties union for all the times that it was, quote, a great day for the amendment because the Citizens United ruling checked the Chilling Effect on free speech caused by and again quoting the incredibly complex system of Campaign Finance rules and regulations about who can speak and what can be said and when it can be set presided over government bureaucrats. The production is of the First Amendment and theyve long been extended beyond isolated and vegetables to the groups and associations. The senate Budget Committee, and now this is more appropriate for this hearing about the senate Budget Committee is not the venue to work through all the complexities of the federal campaignfinance laws area that is the senate rules committee. I believe in the event they were to report legislation in this area, then it would require regular order on the senate floor. Our constitution requires no less, so thats why i urge support against the amendment. Mr. Chairman, is there any remaining time . I will speak when there is more time. The next one is kaine number one. Thank you, mr. Chair. Its committee 128 and it pertains to section 4108 which is on page 78 and its very, very simple. The mark basically says as it needs to others Adjustment Authority given to the Committee Chair if there are amendments madmademade a person into this s require amendments to the statutory caps. Such as a measure increasing the limit for the revised security category for the fiscal year 18,648,000,000,000 coming and i just dropped that may be what the deal is but remember they affect both security and on security. So by dropping that clause we give the full flexibility for the deal that would affect the security an and the nonsecurity portions of the budget caps and allow that and instead of sending the message that the only change we would contemplate in the security tab. If it requires an adjustment on black hats and the sequester mechanism which is the enforcement mechanism they do have some cosponsors if i could add senators warner and murphy as cosponsors. The authority to adjust Discretionary Spending levels in the event that congress and the administration agreed in the discretionary levels for fiscal year 2018. Popular in the Previous Administration for defense and nondefense have to be tied together. Doing so is a negotiating tactic and its unfair to the servicemembers. The constitution first and foremost trusts us to provide for the defense and that duty requires matching the ability of the troops to carry out and the threats we face doing so. The senate agreed with strong bipartisan vote to 898 higher spending levels for the defense department. The budget reflects that bipartisan goal by including the most regular Discretionary Spending we ever can under applicable budgets law along with the appropriate level for the overseas Contingency Operations account. In addition it includes the full amount of long defends discretionary budget to allow for fiscal year 2018 demonstrating our openness to the bipartisan conversation with the trumpet administration over the proper amount of total Discretionary Spending for the remainder of this fiscal year. The budget allows the chairman to adjust discretionary levels to whatever levels congress and the president ultimately approved without arbitrary demand like dollar for dollar links that the judge that outcome to ensure the budget resolution contains the flexibilities for congress to negotiate appropriate Discretionary Spending levels for the upcoming fiscal year i urge thats my colleagues reject this proposed amendment has no linkage, no arbitrary demand. It doesnt signal that the only deal would include an adjustment for defense that is in the hands of those that float at the deal. That is likely to be the only change. They are no other amendments at this moment so we will recess a little bit early and reconvene at 2 30. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] tonight on cspan, former First Lady Michelle Obama and shonda rimes. Here is a preview. Whatu want to talk about was imposter syndrome. About want to talk imposter syndrome, i have seen impostors in a lot of people. When you are at the table and you realize you are a fool, and i am worried about raising my hand. I have been at so many tables ools that wereul us if we, but shame on sit by and let an imposter talk us down. Shame on us. Youome point when you know are right and you know what is right and you dont say anything, you see from happening and use it by quietly because you are afraid to fail, that is what i want to challenge us as , to speak up. Voicesont speak up, our are never involved in the process of problem solving, and we do not get to the right answers without our voices. Former First Lady Michelle Obama talking with tv producer shonda rimes emma tonight at 8 00 eastern here on cspan. On the senate floor this week, new Mexico Centers pay tribute to former six term diedor pete domenici, who last month at the age of 85. As a senator, he served as chair of the Budget Committee. This is 15 minutes. Mr. President , i am joined , senatormy colleague heinrich. We thought we would come together and talk about senator domenici, he pse