with his family. but he never showed up. ten days went by without word, then we learned what had happened. roger and jose had gotten lost and run out of water. approaching death they turned themselves in to the border patrol. roger was deported back to mexico where he called to say he was getting ready to try the crossing again. we haven t heard from him since. [ theme music ] michael: you re in the war room. i m michael shure. the idea was once floated that congress send up black smoke every time they couldn t reach an agreement. however, the cost of fuel being what it is, the suggestion was quickly withdrawn. [ theme music ] michael: right now as we meet a bunch of injury attic attic jeriati character men are meeting behind closed doors. adhering to arcane conventions to arrive at a decision that will impact millions of people. even though the majority of those people don t actually support this small group s policies, things like anti-choice measures and discriminatory hiring practices the group holds much power and has such an enormous budget that it will just push their policies through any way. who is this group of cloisterd fanatics? well it certainly describe the catholic church as it letses meet in rome to elect the next pope. 62% of americans say congressional americans are out of touch with reality. and they re right. just look at the latest republican madness. today paul ryan proposed his budget which looks a whole lot like the budget he proposed last year, you know the one that the american people roundly ejected when they voted to elect the president. ryan has been trotting out the same version of the tax plan for six years. it was called road map for america s future. then he changed it to paths of prosperity. that s the one he stuck with today. well to paraphrase shakespeare a ryan budget by any other name would still smell unsweet. it would eliminate most of obama-care, it would repeal financial regulation, and it would make major cuts to medicare. sounds great. here he is trying to convince americans that they want this tired ol lemon of a plan. it s a path to prosperity, a responsible balanced budget. we believe we owe the american people a balanced budget. for the third straight year we ve delivered. michael: congressman, what you owe the american people is respect. they re smart enough to understand that you introduced the exact same budget during the election and you lost. jay carney today said that the president wants to trim medicare but with a scalpel not an axe. and ryan let slip his real plan for medicare system. this to us is something that we re not going to give up on because we re not going to give up on destroying the healthcare system for the american people. michael: that was bushan it was so man. was it a freudian slip or is young blue eyes cracking under the weight of his own lies. that was the most truthful statement we ve heard from paul ryan maybe ever. mitch mcconnell announced today it s very first amendment to the continuing resolution that is keeping the government afloat is to delay the implementation of obama-care, here we go again. it s not just obama-care that republicans are going after mcdonnell is vowing to dismantle the president s new financial regulation. he s leading a group of 43 republican senators to block the nomination of the head of financial protection bureau. yet today here the republicans were nothing but nice. i will compliment you. you have done a wonderful job in carrying out your duties. michael: sweet words dripping with absolute insincerity. republicans have been fighting against the agency since elizabeth warren first created it. even so the agency has made huge strides like levying $70 million in fines for abusive financial practices. but that s exactly why republicans backed by big banks oppose it, and why they oppose liz warren. the 43 senators blocking the nomination has received $143 million in campaign contributions from the finance insurance and real estate sector. today elizabeth warren took those senators to task. i see nothing here but a filibuster threat against director core dry as an attempt to delay the consumer. it s bad for consumers mall banks, it s bad for credit unions. it s bad for anyone trying to offer an honest product in an honest market. michael: passion, smart gutsy, warren is light years ahead of her predecessor scott brown. wouldn t you know it, after he left the senate the financial sector embraced him with open arms. the boston globe reported yesterday that he s taking a job as counsel for a firm that represents goldman sachs. brown received $10,000 and more than $100,000 from its employees. for more on today s hearings i m joined by patrick r ex-ich. welcome to the war room . thank you for having me on. michael: will they block kordray. yes, others have promised not to vote cordray through as well. what they re asking for in exchange is the way that the agency is structured. they want congress to have more oversight of its budget. they want congress to predict how much it makes per year and what it can and cannot spend money on. they want to exchange the directership with a board. so far the republicans have shown no willingness to give up on that here so you have a stalemate. michael: is it the same ol song for the republicans in the senate or does it have something to do with the sour grapes that cordray was appointed as a recess appointment. i don t think their opposition can t be said to stem from the recess appointment. their decision was the reason for the recess appointment. since the birth of the dodd-frank reform law they vowed not to approve any director. we ve seen where that ended up. republicans generally admire and like richard cordray. they think he s doing a good job. their issue is not with cordray himself but the structure of the agency. they ve stuck with thorough guns. michael: shocking to no one. if they change structurally this agency, how will it affect the work that the agency does? with, that depends on whom you ask. for the proponents of these changes they say it will give it a checks and balances system. some other financial regulators the security exchange system, thethey both work with the board. the argument is it will dechange watchdogs and we ll look out for consumers whereas other agencies are supposed to keep an eye on banks are done by a single director. so republicans claim that these are sort of modest changes that bring the agency in line. people who really think that this agency was necessary and people who went to the mat to get it pushed through they ve been adamant that a single director and sort of a budget coming straight from the federal reserve is the way that they ll return this into a powerhouse and curb some of the abuses of the financial christ and mortgage crisis. michael: how many times die here comptroller of the currency. i love that. let s go to a report by mary jo wright. will the republicans give her trouble as well? if there is any trouble it will come from the left from the democratic party. sherrod brown, the ohio democrat, and sort of an un unabashed liberal. he s concerned about some of the tie to wall street. she worked at a firm in which she represented a lot of wall street clients. he s concerned these will correct conflicts of interest and have her recused in cases. it s a five-member commission. right now there will be three democrats and two republicans. if mary jo white had to recuse herself, it changes the power a little bit. that s their concern. tom coburn and forgive me if i get the quote wrong but it was something close to the more i learn about you the more i like you. he promised to aggressively support her nomination. michael: he was fawning over everyone on cap pal hill. before we let you go patrick i want to talk about elizabeth warren. how much of an impact is senator ratherwarren having just two months in her tenure. so far she has had success bringing attention to issues that she cares about. she went off on banking regulators and demanded answers. she went to the ted cruz style of questioning where she drilled again and again. it became a youtube sensation and people have been locked in on that. in terms of legislative success it s too early to tell. we re just two months into the senate that may be enough time to hang up your coat and clear your throat. michael: warren and cruz, where will the similarities end. patrick reis, thank you so much for coming into the war room. let s turn to another lobby backing republicans. the gun industry. the gun safety measures that congress is debating has the overwhelming support of the american people. 91 the percent want universal background checks. 91%. 86% want to prevent mentally ill people from christianing guns. and 57% support an assault weapons ban and 47% support database to track gun sales. the only one with the chance of passing seems to be background checks. today the senate judiciary committee still passed a bill, but it still has to be passed on the senate floor and that could be tough. unfortunately, gun legislation will fail because the gun lobby is too big. if you think the senate is bad now, imagine if democrats lost seat. democrat levin announced he won t seek re-election. let s start with the bad. crazy tea party justin amash is pulling 11%. scott romney is rumored to making a run and he s leading the republican pac with 26%. and then jennifer granholm is leading with a whooping 59%. go jen. if she becomes senator i will replace her as senator. so i become a senator from michigan one day. i like that idea. and then we turn to movie stars. ashley judd is rumored to be running for senator, mitch mcconnell s seat and republicans are sharpening their clause. today the season toral committee called her a faded hollywood star. speaking of weak candidates, and presidents, george p. bush, nephew of george w. is running for texas land commissioner. you know the guy in charge of practicing the poor oil field from greedy environmentalists and he would be charge of programs for veterans which his family has created a lot. there is an announcement he has singled out one member of his family in particular. you probably know her as former first lady barbara bush. to me she s just ganny. the lesson that ganny taught me the importance of public service. michael: if only he had taken up the family tradition of doing dog portraits. then we wouldn t have another bush with an ego too big to succeed. coming up, the president is just continuing his charm offensive. how lovely. donnie fowler and bill press will bring us the latest from the political front. plus we ll meet one of the activists cycling from newtown to washington to draw attention to gun reform, a necessity owning itself because of congress failure to discuss issues on its merit alone. the backlog of cases has gotten so bad they re worried about the structural integrity of the building oiy. we ll be right back. (vo) brought to you by expedia. expedia helps 30 million travellers a month find what they are looking for one traveller at a time. a closer shave in a single stroke for less irritation, even on sensitive skin. gillette mach3 sensitive. gillette. the best a man can get. (vo) she gets the comedians laughing and the thinkers thinking. ok, so there s wiggle room in the ten commandments, that s what you re saying. (vo) she s joy behar. current will let me say anything. [ theme music ] michael: president obama took his congressional charm offensive to friendly territory today. he waltzed into a meeting with democratic senators to promote his second-term agenda: getting the country s fiscal house in order. immigration reform, and gun safety legislation. at the top of that list is the budget battle. senate democrats led by washington s patty murray are pushing a non-binding budget that would increase federal spending, seek new revenues and spare social programs. but across the hill house budget committee chair paul ryan has a dead on arrival plan that would theoretically, and i mean theoretically balance the budge. balancing the budget is not just arithmetic. it s not just getting expenditures and revenues to add up. it means a healthy economy and pro-growth society. michael: included in that pro growth saturday is swapping out obama-care for market based health wear. we all know how well that s worked out. with us is the well spoken bill press. the author of the boom hate machine: the lies, distortions and personal attacks on the president and who is behind them, and bill joins us from washington, d.c. here in studio is veteran democratic strategist donnie fowler. why does ryan insist on killing obama-care if we know it s a poison pill? because he hasn t had a new idea in the last six years i think. that s the quick answer. seriously. we had an election last november. i thought ryan was even part of it right? obviously not. either he wasn t there or he didn t learn anything from this budget. this is the exact same budget he has put forward over the last three years. it s not a budget, it s a bad joke. obama-care is not going away. the american people don t want it repealed. it s been there two years. the supreme court has upheld it. nine republican governs like it and they re taking the medicaid expansion part of it. who is ryan fooling to think that they re going to repeal obama-care and the entire budget is based on that premise? michael: what bill says is right, donnie. who is he fooling. it has taken this dog and pony show out on the road before, and it s failed before. the cuts that he ran against when he was running for vice president. he s taking credit for all the new revenue ratings under the obama tax cuts that he opposed, that so many republicans opposed. he has the same budget, but he wants to take credit for the savings from the obama-care and healthcare. who is he fooling? he s fooling himself. michael: asked and answered there. the poll out today shows that congress job approval has dropped 26% and democrats are down 31%. how is this being perceived by the voters, you would think that the republicans would change their tune. why don t they hear what we know? well, i donnie i think they re on a suicidal machine mission. you hear talk the party now has the approval of older white males not me but people like me. that s all they got. the party hasn t changed. yet given the opportunity to show that they ve changed, grown and that they have new ideas they got nothing. it s groundhog day for these guys. i don t get it. i don t know who they appeal to. they certainly don t appeal to the american people. this budget will not get to the senate. obama would never sign it. the american people don t want it, it s going nowhere. they realized they don t have any room to grow. they re not able to grow with the demographics in the u.s. changing, even my own state of south carolina, georgia and texas, they re being talked about as being battleground states? they don t have anywhere this grow. they re desperately trying oh hold on to what they ve got the tea party right wing. michael: that s a great point. we re sitting here, bill is sitting here, we re baffled by them going back to the same old tricks. but in fact, that s what wins them everything that they do have. they re saying that it may not get better. let s just hope that it doesn t get worse. we have to hold on tight to what we have, let s recycle the same stuff and maybe the sky will open, the stars will fall and the world will change for us. michael: does that make sense? let me tell you something no, when paul ryan appears at cpac this week, he ll be the messiah, the second coming. he ll appeal to that audience, but only to that audience. michael: right, and there is some delight in that. it keeps them doing it. we can sit back and criticize and question it. let s be clear, the democrats in the house and senate are not doing a whole lot better than the republicans. to some degree this is a bipartisan disappointment. that s a nice word for what the american people think. michael: i understand that, but the democrats the republicans are doing something that has been proven to be unsuccessful for them. the democrats are just doing nothing right now. there is a huge difference there. bill i ll ask this question of you. do no harm. exactly. michael: some, the president will meet with house republicans. is there any way that meeting can go well? no, in a word. look i m of the school that thinks meeting with any republican for any reason is a total waste of time. at the same time, we do live in a city where we need some republican votes to get anything done. the hope is that he ll be able to peel some republicans away from boehner and cantor in the house and from mitch mcconnell and the senate, and get enough votes to get a decent balanced plan passed. that s a long, uphill climb. i give the president for trying, at least. michael: there has been talk of movies, dinner, lunch, he visits the house. what is the plan here for the president if nothing happens? well look, this is a real way of saying i tried. speaker john boehner has done something that republicans have not allowed in a long time. he has allowed some things to go to the house floor for a vote even though most republicans do not support it. first there is the pr play. the president is also getting hurt by these budget battles. he needs to say to the american people i m trying. second, if speaker boehner allows legislation to go to the floor, wide open, maybe the president has hope for 10, 20, 30 house republicans. with all the democrats he can pass something. michael: that is hopeful. we ll leave with our own bipartisan moment. take a look at this, guys. mitt romney s sontag posted this photo of his father s birthday celebration on instagram. he s celebrating celebrating with a cupcake and a diet coke. what would you give romney, putting you on the spot, for his birthday? well, first of all i hope he has a wilder celebration later in the day than a cupcake and a diet coke. i would give him a t-shirt with the numbers 47 emblazoned on it because he called the 47 moochers during the campaign, and he ended up getting 47% of the vote. he is mr. 47. michael: lieutenantly. lieutenant absolute lieutenant absolute absolutely that s 100% the right answer. maybe he would join the democratic party. michael: he would return it. the republicans don t want him any more. michael: donnie fowler, our friend here in the war room, bill press. you can wake up with bill in the morning. thank you so much for being on the show tonight, bill. up next, 26 cyclists, one for each of the victims of newtown are riding to washington to make a point. the point that most americans agree with and the point that most politicians wish would go away. you re in the war room . we ll be right back. out for us. why? because selling their funds makes them more money. which makes you wonder isn t that a conflict? search proprietary mutual funds. yikes! then go to e-trade. we ve got over 8,000 mutual funds, and not one of them has our name on it. we re in the business of finding the right investments for you. e-trade. less for us. more for you. the fund s prospectus contains its investment objectives, risks, charges, expenses and other important information and should be read and considered carefully before investing. for a current prospectus visit etrade.com/mutualfunds. from silver screens. to flat screens. twizzlerize your entertainment everyday with twizzlers the twist you can t resist. [ theme music ] michael: you re back inside the war room. i m michael shure. in the 8 days since the tragedy at sandy hook at least 2,605 americans have died as a result of gun violence. that s nearly 30 people a day. even more than were killed on that horrible day in newtown. congress has yet to pass new gun safety legislation. today, however, two pieces of the president s gun legislation did make it out of the senate judiciary committee. universal background checks and a school safety measure. the bill will now move to a full senate vote. one of the organizations demanding congress pass common sense gun legislation is a mixed group of professional, amateur and every day cyclists who road from newtown connecticut, to washington, d.c. there are 26 riders in total one for every child and staff member killed at the elementary school and they call themselves team 26 . imagine if we had a rider for every person killed since newtown, we would have to close off freeways. one of the children who attended sandy hook school joins us tonight. monte frank is the organizer and one of the riders of team 26, and he joins us from washington, d.c. i heard that when you pulled out that it was raining. what is it like to do this ride in the middle of winter? the conditions were horrific. we left baltimore in a torrential downpour and it was 45 degrees. so we the skies can be clear a little bit. just before we started the event with the congressional delegation but it was pretty cold and nasty coming in. buti talked to him every night on the way down and he said it s great to be on your wheels. they kept saying, we ve got 26 angels guiding me along. we were also very inspired by representative gabby giffords when she tweeted to us when your legs get tired keep pedaling. and we did that and we arrived. michael: those pieces of inspiration are amazing. it s a somber journey you re taking but there is a great deal of energy that took you to washington and a great deal of resolve. tell me about the mood of the riders. well, we had riders, four of us are from newtown of. two of us had children who went to sandy hook elementary school. we have riders who are teachers. we had a newtown police officer riding with us. we had a vietnam veteran who was my daughter s guest veteran at the sandy hook school on veteran s day breakfast for three years including one of the years where my daughter had vickie soto as a teacher. we re moms, we re dads. we strongly believe there needs to be change in place to prevent another tragedy such as occurred at my kids elementary school. michael: it s clear why you decided to organize this ride. you know, did you have trouble even limiting it to 26 people or did you find the community so many people wanted to join you in this effort, and where does it go from here? there was a tremendous outpouring, people wanting to join the ride, but help in all sorts of ways. we had 26 riders, and we had six people who were supporting us. logistically getting us meals all the arrangements and logistics that you need to get from sandy hook. my older daughter was is in the support group. where do we go from here? i m also on the board of a wonderful grassroots organization called newtown action alliance. we ve been working very closely with coalition groups throughout the country. so this effort is going to continue. the connecticut affect is not fading away. it s clearly growing. when we re riding down we re talking with americans throughout people who in pickup trucks who would roll down their window and shout encouragement to us. it s clear to us that most americans agree with us, that we need to have reasonable common sense measures such as the bills pending put in place in order to reduce the scourge of gun violence in our towns and in our cities. michael: what a way to do after your inspiring ride is the often less than inspiring washington power structure. today iowa senator grassley voted in opposition to pass the senate committee today. i want to you take a listen to senator grassley. mass shootings will continue to occur despite universal background checks. criminals will continue to steal guns and buy them illegally to circumvent requirements. when that happens we ll be back again debateing whether gun registration is needed. michael: we should point out grassley is the only republican to vote with the democrats on another part of legislation which is the gun trafficking and straw purchasing of guns. so when you have opposition like this, what do you say to them, monte frank as you hear senator grassley say this? i mean, first, i would say that i respectfully disagree. background checks has got to be the center peace to an effective strategy to reduce gun violence in our cities and states. it s not the only piece. there are four pieces to it, and those are the four bills being currently discussed. when you put it together with the trafficking bill, which i was pleased that senator grassley supported that. you saw the weapons ban on eliminating the high capacity magazines. when you put all that together we think and i think most americans think that it won t eliminate the possibility of future shootings but it certainly would make it more difficult. by making it more difficult we believe it will reduce the likelihood or the frequency that we have seen over the last since years. michael: yes, that s the real point, the likelihood, the frequency, the barrage to use a word that is appropriate there. it s what everybody is fighting against, and monte frank with team 26 trying to lift spirits in the country and in newtown. we appreciate your time here. up next we are different than most other media outlets here in the war room because we provide regular coverage of the veteran s benefits prices. that s not just to toot our own horn at all. the stories are heartbreaking. the numbers are staggering. after the break evidence that it s all getting worse not better. stay with us. for true stories. with award winning documentaries that take you inside the headlines. real, gripping, current. documentaries. on current tv. stop looking at car interiors. get inspired by other stuff. yep. yep. ok. sure. why not? woah. touchscreens. put that in your dash. now, luxury stuff. make your seats like that. that thing has wifi, why doesn t your car? you can t do that. ignore that guy. give it wifi. yes! make it fit 5 people. no, 5 actual sized people. give them leg room, good. destroy boring car interiors forever. and that s how you do it. easy. michael: the number of folders containing disabilities claim at the veteran s affair office is so huge that the building has been deemed structurally unsound. you heard me right. according to a report issued by the va the inadequate storms created an unsafe workspace and appeared to have the potential to compromise the integrity of the building. the files, as currently stored, exceeded the capacity of the floor by 39 pounds per-square-foot. the image of the va office collapsing under its caseload is a perfect image. the number of veterans waiting to get benefits is expected to hit 1 million by the end of this month. joining me again tonight is the reporter who exhausttively poured through the thousands of pages of veterans affairs records aaron glantz. president obama pledged to solve this president bush. congress has given him half a million dollars to move this on computers, yet more files, and to the point that some of these buildings are on the verge of structural damage. michael: it s amazing. when you think about what the president was given and what has not happened, it s disappointing, embarrassing that that s the state we re in. let s look at some of them. the study showed some of the five slowest areas for veterans here. of how long it takes to get a file claimed. let s go the absolute slowest which i believe is los angeles. you come home from iraq or afghanistan, and you say i have post traumatic stress disorder. i have nightmares flashbacks, a brain injury from being blown up. welcome home, 506 days is the average wait that all veterans face. but for the newly returning veterans filing their first claim is over 600 days. michael: what is the difference between iraq and afghanistan, the difference between what they re claiming and filing for. the va will just say they re overwhelmed. they ve had a 50% increase of veterans filing claims just just 2010. they are allowing vietnam veterans to file claims for agent orange. there are aspects to it but at the end of the day if you have to wait two years to get your benefits that s why people end up homeless and that is why we have a huge rate of suicide among the veterans in the united states. michael: is that depression, ptsd, all these horrible conditions waiting for checks and not being able to make ends meet. it s not quite that simple but i ve come across plenty of cases where people in fact, one of the recent stories i just did, a guy had to wait so long for his disability check in indiana that his electricity was cut off three times. he just got back from iraq. he said, i thought of killing myself during this period of time. i reported on another veteran in florida, scott after he was denied his disability claim despite being diagnosed with ptsd by a v.a. doctor, he took his own life. why is there such a problem for veteran suicide where veterans commit suicide every day and almost 1 million veterans are waiting for benefits. you do the math. michael: it s not just math. you connect the dots and we re not responding to a severe problem all over. this mountain seems too big to get through. let s look at these numbers here. when eric came in the former secretary of the army, when he comes in, he said the biggest efforts they re going to make is processing of claims. and they decideed to computize efforts. by 2013 $537 million were spent and we have buildings falling down? it s a bureaucratic dysfunction. the important thing is it s not like the president didn t say the right thing. it s not like he didn t start doing the right thing. but where is the oversight? where is the executive branch looking and making sure that this stuff actually gets done? so that s the problem that we have. the number of workers who work at the v.a. they have hired 3,000 new claims adjustors since 2000 to deal with the backlog. what we found in their own internal documents they ve only added 300 people. well people left. so there is super fudge that goes in to the math. michael: the numbers are not adding up here. if we had more claim adjustors wouldn t be getting through the claims. it just hasn t actually happened. the government is not telling the whole truth. michael: let s keep going. i mentioned this at the top. the v.a. expects the backlog to grow and pass 1 million by the end of this month. tell me what that means? well, what is depressing about this is when president obama was elected we already had this problem. he referred to it as a broken v.a. bureaucracy. this is when he was senator obama, and he pledged all the reforms we re talking about. at that time there were 400,000 veteran who is had been waiting on their disability claims. now as you say we re up to almost 1 million veterans. afghanistan, vietnam, world war 2 veterans who were destitute waiting on their pension. survivors of those who killed themselves waiting for the pension. the v.a. is piling these claims up instead of getting people to help they promised. michael: what do they say about this? the frustrating thing is we know it s unhe acceptable and we re going to take care of it. which is fine as long as it goes, but they ve been saying that for five years. every year, it s unacceptable, we ll take care of it. come back a year later and it s the same thing. michael: the president, too. you mentioned the president is the president having to answer to this on a regular basis? shinseki is still there, but he s he not doing the job. i think congress is getting increasingly frustrated. there has been all this money appropriated, and it s been approved by congress to hire these extra people but it s not happening. people on capitol hill are asking why. they re starting to demand answers. reporter: aaron glantz, i wish you could bring better news but you bring it well, and i appreciate you coming in. mymy pleasure. michael: iran has posted it s review of the film argo. in short they felt the score was too bland and there were structure issues and oh, it was also the work of satan. that s next when we come back. satirical point of view. if you believe in state s rights but still believe in the drug war you must be high. only on current tv. the bar harbor bake is really worth trying. [ male announcer ] get more during red lobster s lobsterfest. with the year s largest selection of mouth-watering lobster entrees. like our delicious lobster lover s dream, featuring two kinds of lobster tails. or our savory, new grilled maine lobster and lobster tacos. my favorite entree is the lobster lover s dream. what s yours? come celebrate lobsterfest and sea food differently. [ male announcer ] visit redlobster.com now for an exclusive $10 coupon on two lobsterfest entrees. michael: now for the best of the rest, progressive insights i don t want you to miss on this tuesday night. first up we like to know everything about our applications were boxers or briefs to their favorite tax havens. unfortunately russian hackers are unearthing mundane information from michelle obama joe biden and sarah palin. the site exposed what looked like to be the first lady s credit report with her chicago address and. now it s no longer online. they re exposing politics and politicians. next on our list, is iran. it s planning to sue the oscar-winning film argo claiming it s anti-iranian, unislamic and ahistoric. iranian authorities decry argo saying awarding the anti-iran movie is a propaganda attack against our nation and entire humanity. easy there iran. the oscar campaign season is over. several news outlets are reporting that french lawyer represented the notorious we knowen terror ramirez sánchez otherwise known as carlos the jackal. the state of mississippi were about one in three adults is 30 pounds fatter than the average american want the government out of their high fructose corn syrup. it would prevent any locality from calorie counts like michael bloomberg in new york city. heaven for bid anyone learns that their favorite appetizer from applebees has 1300-calories in. and going to the the catholic conclave, no one does it better than brett erlich. everyone calm down brett s talking now. greetings, friends, i m here live in the vatican city in front of their ancient brick wall of prayer things to cover the pomp and pageantry of papal picking. let s go now. we ll come back to that. one other way to keep abreast of the situation is to check in on the official papal twitter handle. it s boring but has bagillion followers. let s go back to the chimney. nothing, oh, what was that? a bird. you can follow my hometown cardinal cardinal mahony. prayers needed. you got those prayers. you ll need them with all the sexual abuse cover up that you ve been doing. they re going to reframe the chimney shot. let s see it. oh oh, let s go back, a little bit too much too fast. until they get it right let s look at cnn coverage. the 115 voting cardinals those under 80 years old entered the sistine chapel. why do you have a 3-d model of the sistine chapel. are you going to rob it? let s go back to the chimney. it s night. that s all for new. keep checking in for updates. black smoke means no pope. white smoke means new pope. any other pope means send the medics there has been a horrible accident. i m done talking now. michael: as only brett could do it. someone is always in our war room. check us out online at current.com/ the war room. that s where you can link up to our twitter and facebook page and check out our extra web extras. stay tune, the young turks the cenk uygur are next. young turks is that we re honest. they can question whether i m right, but i think that the audience gets that this guy, to the best of his ability, is trying to look out for us.
it eliminates pell grants for students and provides a harsh squeeze for millions more. the key to a good job and opportunity is that college degree. but republicans turned a blind eye to the fact that college costs continues to escalate. they will say hell grants pe ll much harder to come by in america. research strings under the ru republican project. this includes alzheimer s, cancer, and aides. we rely on those dollars for jobs at the ke diversity and research and businesses that are growing and innovation. the heart of american ingenuity over our history has been in manufacturing and the ability to build ridges, roads, railroads, and a community. it attracts private investment. the government dollars we provide for transportation and infrastructure are in supply exponentially. it attracts private investment. but in the face of the desired to build and grow, republicans cut such investment by 32%. the republican budget is not consistent with american values. it is not fiscally responsible. it puts american jobs at risk. it ignores the fact that job creation and economic growth are the most effective ways to reduce that debt and the deficit. it is a plan for economic weakness. it is a receiving vision of american greatness and innovation. it is a harsh vision for our great country. i yield back to my colleague. i yield to an half minutes. two and a half and it s. > minutes. thank you. i own a business. i understand the tough choices needed to balance a budget. i understand the tough choices it takes to grow jobs. i have to say you re not making tough choices when you produce a budget that hurts middle-class families and slashes programs for middle-class. you re making a dangerous choice that will have real impacts on families across the nation. the economic policy institute found that the he was a planned release to date will result in two american jobs next year alone and stalled economic recovery. that is on top of sequester cuts in jobs we will see this year. the biggest threat to our long- term economic security at this time is not the deficit. it is the economy. it is the lack of jobs. it is a future where the u.s. cannot compete with its global peers. this will bring us closer to that scenario. chairman ryan and i share wisconsin. this is a blue-collar county where people are proud of the work they do and they want to be working. but they are struggling. four years ago, 2000 employees lost their jobs. a company announced they were shutting down. we do not help them or america when we keep tax incentives for companies to ship jobs overseas instead of incentivizing companies to hire in wisconsin and in america. we do not help them when we cut programs and raise taxes on the middle class so we can lower the tax rates for the top earners in this country. that seems to be what we received in the budget that is on our guest today. budget should reflect values. what we need to do is focus on economic growth and how to get the people of america back to work. we need a real path to prosperity. when we invest in infrastructure, research, development, small business loans, we can increase competitiveness globally and support small business owners and create jobs. i want to work with all my colleagues on the budget committee on a balanced budget that focuses on job growth and can responsibly reduce the deficit. instead of resorting to recycled policies that have been rejected by the public and congress, we need to focus on ways we can work together to move our economy forward. i yield back the balance of my time. in conclusion, we know you generate to generate a strong environment economy, we need to invest and not cut. the ryan budget cuts in all the wrong places. i yield back. thank you. i yield myself five minutes to discuss the implications of the ryan republican budget on medicare. the federal budget is a priority. there is quite a contrast for the way we would implement our priorities and values are. a budget should be responsible and reduce the deficit. it should make investments to grow the economy. it is also an obligation to seniors and our future. the republican budget fails to meet all those challenges. it undermines commitments and shifts the financial burden to middle class americans. it fails to make the investments in education and infrastructure necessary to ensure competitiveness, opportunity, and economic growth. and yes, it feels to meet it fails to meet obligations. they talk about how much their parents need and use medicare. they know they are paying into the medicare now. but the republican budget ends medicare for senior. they want to shift the costs of health care to seniors and their families. many seniors and disabled americans count on medicare. medicare is a promise to all seniors in this country. house republicans are yet again proposing to break that promise. republicans plan to end the day care as we know it. there is a wide array of choices in medicare. over 90% of physicians participate in medicare and seniors a choice of their doctors and medicare advantage a new delivery models and seniors value those choices and access to doctors. the republican budget hands over those choices to insurance companies. we are working hard to engage in new ways to reduce the costs of health care under medicare, we are seeing a lower rate of increase in medicare. what the republican budget would do is raise the health and safety and financial security of our seniors by undermining those innovations and cutting costs in medicare. baby boomers are coming into medicare. 10,000 new ones per day. we want to make sure we demand efficiency and quality. we have to do it the right way. let s do that. let s reject the republican budget and make sure we have a balanced approach in these commitments. we need to meet our obligations to seniors and not through a voucher program, but finding a way to sustain the commitment we have made. with that, i will yield to my colleague from california to also speak about how important medicare is to seniors. utes.nd a half min thank you. excuse my voice. i m recovering from a cold. thank you for your unwavering leadership and protect in seniors. there are bush policies i cannot forget. in 2005, there was a rising tide of poverty under failed economic policies. millions of americans are still struggling to recover from the massive financial crisis this administration inherited. republican budget extends and even expand these terrible economic failures of the bush administration. but under the clinton administration, they brought in revenue with higher taxes. we created more jobs. we balance the budget. we have the revenue we need to maintain a stronger safety net. in stark contrast, this republican budget protects the wealthy and the powerful while medicare and medicaid and the safety net for children and seniors and the disabled and the vulnerable. this budget would put seniors at the mercy of private insurance companies and dramatically increasing their healthcare costs and limits in the choice of others. this budget comes at a time when congress has cut spending by 1.5 trillion dollars and an additional $85 billion cuts in the sequester. even though programs have a child tax credit and medicaid support families and promote economic recovery, this republican budget continues the misguided effort to punish the poor, vulnerable, and senior citizens. we want to create jobs and opportunities for everyone, but we cannot shred the safety net for our seniors as this budget does. it threatens to shatter our fragile recovery while recanting pentagon protecting pentagon spending. they encourage corporations to send american jobs offshore. i think we all agree that a budget is a moral document, or at least it should be a moral document. i have in my hand a letter from a little girl. she wrote to me. she is six years old. she lives in oakland, california. she has a simple message for our committee. she says, please help hungry children. it is the true measure of our nation of how we treat our war, seniors, and especially children like this little girl. she gets it. if there is one hungry child in america, this committee, this budget has failed to do its job. helpudget will not only - hungry people, but that more people at risk of being hungry. it ll put seniors at risk. this is not who we are. thank you. now to talk about how this budget protects special interests at the expense of the middle class, i will recognize senator blumenthal for five minutes. thank you. this should be a discussion we are focusing on areas of agreement and progress. healthcare reform not only i m pleased that the chairman has agreed that we will have a hearing later in the year dealing with the infrastructure deficit that this country faces. as i go through the material, i see not one word that references infrastructure and its opportunities. we are seeing a relentless assault on the middle class. if enacted, it would costs 2 million jobs, 750,000 middle- class jobs. it would freeze things like pell grants and a lemonade you can listen to your own state universities and community colleges. incorporated in this is the ongoing tax shuffle that we have been dealing with for the last couple of years. there is no hint of how there will be tax loopholes cut that would provide for a 25% top rate. we have been listening to that for years with the centerpiece of a residential campaign that one of us was involved with. no one gave a sense of how that would be possible without dramatic reduction but the middle class depends on like a home interests tax reduction. we have been reluctant to see people close special interest. we have tried repeatedly to deal with the oil and gas subsidies of 100 years that long ago ceased to be an incentive to produce oil and is merely a tax subsidy to their autumn line. we can and must to their bottom line. i look forward to an opportunity for the democrats to offer their alternative. in the meantime, we get to hear from my colleagues. thank you. i agree with my friend from oregon. the tax code is overly complex. it has hundreds of tax breaks and not only distort economic hit year, but also do that for consumers as well. you can see from chart 18 that these tax expenditures amount to a lot of money. over $1.1 trillion per year just shy of the amount of all discretionary spending, including defense. many of these tax breaks are simply wasteful spending through the tax code. how else can you characterize special tax breaks for corporate jets and big oil? it is a shame that challenging this wasteful tech spending seems to break down along party lines. i have no doubt that it is tax picks for social spending programs, my republican friends would be howling about government waste and corruption. but these tax giveaways for some of the wealthiest and most powerful in this country seem to be of no concern. one of the most egregious examples is the special tax preference that this budget gives to oil companies. these are companies that have profited over $1 trillion in profits over the last 10 years. you can see it from chart 17. those profits are aided by a couple of billion dollars that they receive annually courtesy of code. of the tax would. exxon and shell were ranked as the top profiting companies. they were not helping the average american by providing more jobs or providing lower prices at the pump. four of the five companies shed a total of 15,000 jobs over the previous five years. there s no doubt about it that big oil has been making big profit while gouging consumers with the gas prices and pocketing the tax breaks, yet they get a big tax under this republican budget. you can call it the path to prosperity, but it is really the path to prosperity for big oil and the road to perdition for the rest of us. there are better ways to spend tax dollars. subsidizing big oil fix our country in the wrong direction on energy policy. we should not increase dependence on fossil fuel that is expensive. there s nothing is fully responsible about climate change denial or pursuing tax and energy policies that maximize profits for big oil while pushing the costs off on children and future generations. i don t the balance of my time. yield the balance of my time. thank you. we should talk about ways we can do a better job. i yield 10 minutes. i yield myself to and a half minutes. the highest priority for democrats on this committee since we inherited this economic crisis that is creating jobs last month we got good news. the economy created 36,000 jobs in february. none of limit rate drop to 7.7%. the lowest since 2008. the unemployment rate dropped to 7.7%. that is the lowest since 2008. can we please put the slide on the monitors? there you have it. the unemployment rate what it could be and should be. it has been the story of our recovery. what are the consequences of not having enough police, firefighters? teachers? as you can see from this slide on the monitor, according to the household survey, there are 950,000 fewer people employed by state, local, and local governments federal governments since 2009. you have never put before the american people what the consequences are of the layouts. shame on you. these are not the faceless government bureaucrats the other side likes to demonize. the are the teachers in your children s classrooms and the cops and the firefighters keeping your communities safe. that is why this is fundamentally flawed. what happened? we lost 8 million jobs. why are we doing this again? why? look at what is happening in europe with austerity. the way debt has been described on this panel is totally, totally unrealistic. why in god s name would be one to follow down the path of europe? that is the only place this roadmap will take us. creating economic growth by investing in our country is the best way to reduce our deficit. the first thing we need to do is replace the looming sequester. that is 750,000 jobs. our ranking member was offered an amendment to eliminate the shortsighted way. we must invest in job creation. with that, i will yield 2.5 minutes to the gentleman from rhode island. i thank the gentleman from new jersey. the single most effective way to bring prosperity and well- being to our country is to get people back to work. rhode island has been hit by the economic downturn. we have the highest unemployment rate in the country. we understand the importance of developing a budget proposal that creates new opportunities for middle-class families. if we are serious about keeping our economic recovery going, we need a budget that supports small businesses and is everything possible to help them succeed. we need to make things in america. we need to stop exporting american goods we need to start exporting american goods and not jobs. there is a serious legislative effort to give manufacturers and businesses the courage they need to compete in the global economy. then make it in america manufacturing act would help build partnerships in our states and regions to ensure they are getting the target resources they need to retrain workers and campy in the marketplace of the 21st century. and compete in the marketplace of the 21st century. it will help businesses and communities and support american workers. we need to make sure companies have incentives to grade jobs in the united states rather than moving them to other countries as our current tax code provides. that is why we support the ring jobs home act bring jobs home act. it will end tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas and create incentives to keep jobs in the united states. many continue to struggle in this economic kirby. we need to rebuild the housing sector and ensuring that we have the roads, bridges, schools that will make american businesses more competitive and allow communities to thrive. these are the priorities that are not reflected in the budget that we have before us today. they are sensible and urgent priorities that ca democrats wil continue to fight for. i yield back the balance of my time. two minutes to the representative from new mexico. i thank my colleagues from new jersey and rhode island. i m concerned about this impact on jobs. it is both arbitrary and harmful to middle-class families, disabled, and seniors. this is a plan to austerity and not to prosperity. it will flush economic growth and costs jobs. the writing budget will result in 2 million fewer american jobs in 2014 a loan. this is on top of the 750,000 jobs we will lose in 2014 alone. this is on top of the 750,000 jobs we will lose in the sequester. the bureau of labor statistics study says the health sector will be a leader in job growth throughout the rest of this decade. the health sector will create 4.3 million jobs by 2020. 30% increase while the rest of the economy creates jobs at 13% rate. simply put, healthcare services and deliveries is where jobs are. unfortunately, republicans in this congress will put job growth in jeopardy. the policy priorities estimates that the ryan budget will cut $2.5 trillion from health care by 2023. it does a by turning medicare into a voucher program. this forces health care providers to jobs and reduce services or their patients. with an aging population, we can be investing in critical infrastructure like the health care system and not cutting. we can have positive job growth and create jobs this year with basic investments. this bill repeals affordable care act, but it is still below the land. the law of the land. there can be assistance that help small businesses and individuals select any role in health care plans. this infrastructure investments create jobs we need. in new mexico alone, it will reverse the negative job growth. the rhyme proposal is bad policy. it harms the most vulnerable citizens and is a job killer the ryan a proposal is bad policy. it harms the most portable citizens and is a job killer. i yield back. i yield my time to the representative from california. thank you. i went to point out that this republican budget does not invest in the working people of america for the future workforce of america. this budget eliminates over one million kilograms to students. it does not invest in the badly needed stem teachers. our country needs at least 100,000 of these teachers. this does nothing to just this needed investment. once my republican colleagues investing in students is not spending in washington. educating the future workforce is local investment in every community across america. i agree that the budget is about priority. this budget makes it a priority to abandon the education of future workforce. this budget makes it a priority to preserve the tax loopholes for the largest corporations in america. it raises the income tax by over $2000 per american family. in my 16 years of legislating, i have never experienced a document where the rhetoric spoken about the document is completely opposite of the language in that document. this budget is not good for the current work worse of america. it is not invest in them or retrain them. we talked about the millions americans who are out of work. and the same time, this budget does nothing to help them get back to work. this budget is a priority of protecting loopholes for the largest corporations and costing over $2000 or african american when they do their taxes. during an evening session, the budget committee took up amendments to the bill dealing with taxes, healthcare, job training programs, and the medicare voucher program. this is two hours and 15 minutes. the gentleman is recognized. this is an amendment offered to protect the american middle class from tax increases. the gentleman is recognized for nine minutes. thank you. both parties are committed to reducing the deficit. we need to strengthen the economic future. we have significant differences on how to accomplish these goals. i believe there are budgets to reflect our values and priorities and real-life circumstances. we have a chart i would like to show. here are the facts. the 21970 nine in 2007, take on paper the top 1% of income earners grew 278%. in contrast, the take him pay of the middle 20% of families grew only 25% and incomes of the poorest 20% grew only 18.2%. the amendment i bring for consideration is simple. it asked that everyone pays their fair share and prioritize , thosetasclass families making $250,000 and less. there is a $1.1 trillion shift to the middle class and the budget for us. these priorities are not expressed in the budget we are considering today. the tax policy center has estimated that trillions of funds would offset the cost for top individual and corporate tax rate by 25%. the gop budget will be to repeal tax reductions that benefit working american such as the mortgage reduction and exclusion for and the child care credits. raising taxes on working families by eliminating their tax code will play a serious consequence, including making it harder for working families in wisconsin across the country to make ends meet. this would represent a $2000 increase to the average middle- class family. it would costs the economy millions of jobs over the coming years by reducing consumer spending. it will weaken economic world. third, it will hurt homeowners and deliver a blow to the housing industry by reducing the mortgage interest where real estate tax reductions that middle-class families receive in support of owning a home, which is a cornerstone of the american dream. for my first job after college, it was a realtors association. i know firsthand about how important homeownership was and what it does for neighborhoods and safety in the community and what it does. jeopardize will jeopardize the biggest investment those people will make in their lifetime. medical care that middle-class families presently enjoy, it would weaken the child tax credit, including military families. i think we can all agree the tax code is overly complex. we need to make it simpler and smarter so it benefits all- americans and making sure everyone is paying their fair share. it overhauls the individual and corporate tax codes and favors the wealthy and the powerful and no one else. who pays for this benefit for millionaires? middle-class families who rely on the tax credit and mentioned above. c mitchell and medicaid and medicare and nursing homes seniors rely on medicaid and medicare and nursing homes. keeping this tax rates for corporations and oil companies let s look at the facts. during the clinton administration, the tax rate was at 39% and the economy grew by more than 20 million jobs. during the bush administration, the top tax rate was reduced to 35% and the economy last half one million jobs. what we need to do is focus on how to jumpstart the economy and promote job growth. we need to keep the tax cuts for the middle class in place and invest in infrastructure and research and development so we can create an environment where companies can expand and grow jobs. it comes down to priorities. support job growth and the middle class. support strengthening medicare and medicaid. i know in wisconsin it is a common choice people would make. i yield tuber presented chris van hollen. representative chris van hollen. thank you. here is a sentence. that is the purpose of this amendment. for the last figures with respect to the affordable care act, we have been hearing it does not just a repeal. this is the third year we have seen in this budget proposal to drop the top tax rate down to 25%. this time we have a little more context in which this debate has taken place. it took place during the presidential campaign when governor romney put forward a plan that was more modest than this plan. we were able to look at consequences for the middle- class families for that line proposed by governor romney. the independent tax policy center that has been used by many people now is including governor romney before he got the answer that he not want. he was quoting tax policy center for this when he did like them. they concluded that if you re going to drop the tax rate from 35% to what he was proposing, 28%, you would have to make up approximately 5 trillion dollars in lost revenue to keep it revenue neutral. that is what you propose to do in this budget. $5 trillion by eliminating deductions and exemptions. we know the three biggest deductions are mortgage interest, charitable, state and local. healthcare. we know the distribution of those exemptions and to the most impact. as you eliminate the mortgage reduction, you will have a disproportionate negative impact on middle-class families. $5 trillion. we have never seen a proposal like this. how will you do it? never. we keep asking, can you do this without hurting the middle class? we know that you cannot. that is what the tax policy center showed. to make up for that $5 trillion, it if you start by taking way exemptions for high income people, you do not make up nearly enough to recapture that $5 trillion and make it revenue neutral. you can only do it by hitting middle income taxpayers. if you are a high income individual and making $5 million per year, your deductions and exemptions are a relatively small portion. you re getting a huge tax cut today. this would take you from 39%- pray five percent. 39%-29%. 25%. net tax cuts averaging at least $250,000 for incomes in the top 1%. as he said, when you provide another windfall tax break for folks at the top and cling to do in a deficit neutral way, which you have to do, you would have to sock it to the middle class. simple math. if that is not the case, we would like to see a study that shows how you would do it. we would like you to support us in this amendment this time around. time for the gentleman has not expired. now aspired. the gentleman is recognized. will the gentleman yield in the beginning? yes. i m familiar with the statistics the gentleman from maryland mentioned. the $5 trillion figure was debunked. but tax policy center did not measure the romney plan. they made up their own assumptions about it. it has been concluded that the claims you could lower the base about hurting the middle class so all of those claims to the contrary about the plan that was in the campaign the tpc not even studied the plan. you can lower the base without hurting middle-class taxpayers. more to the point, it is in the ways and means committee. they wrote the bill. that is their job. we do not write tax legislation in here. this amendment tries to write tax legislation. the goal is not to raise taxes on anyone. with that, i yield back. thank you. the arguments that are put forth on what the tax plan is reminded me of the sequester argument that we heard that the white house. tsa will have long lines and the only thing is that we have some prisoners that are let go. we ve heard a lot of the sky is falling. it has not fallen. we heard the sky will fall on our tax plans. ladies and gentlemen, ways and means is working on a tax plan. you do not have the facts to say the sky will fall when you do not know what is in it. we do not even know what is in it. the ranking members talked about where the $5 trillion come from. program tax reform has been shown to reduce more revenues. perhaps part of that $5 billion of it if it is true will come from more people getting more paychecks and a healthier and happier wealthier middle class and we have ever had in this country before. perhaps that ll be the solution. we agreed that we should not raise taxes on the middle class. we should not raise taxes on anyone. everyone should pay their fair share. we think the way to do it is to have a fairer and simpler system. again, the best thing we can do to turn the economy around and do ensure that everyone is paying their fair share is to have program tax reform. a budget resolution calls for comprehensive tax reform to broaden the tax rate into a simple two bracket. the rest of the details we are leaving to the ways and means committee. these reform would make the code there fair and allow americans to keep more of the money that they earned and entrepreneurship. with this, i will yield about three minutes to my friend from wisconsin. thank you. i appreciate the time. welcome to the budget committee. he had the opportunity to get to know each other a little bit. you can never have enough of wisconsin in my opinion. if it had a couple of more, we would have the right mix here. slide number 11 for me. i was struck by some of the data that was shown on previous graph. there is a gap between the top 1% and middle-class is getting broader. it would show the gap started in the 1990s when you had the higher tax rates on everyone. there is not a correlation between tax rates and whether the top 1% does well or does not you well. do well. i do not really understand it from that standpoint. [laughter] i went to look at this slide here. all of the tax expenditures they were the middle class when favor the middle class when they don t. it takes tax expenditures away from the rich and not affecting the middle class. i wonder whether you have read the bill. we hear a lot about reading the bills. i will read this part. line 15. closing loopholes to fund spending does not constitute reform i agree with that. tax reform should be revenue neutral. it should not be used to raise taxes on american people. we are in agreement in that regard. page 73, line 11. consolidating is 10%. most middle tax payers would see their tax rate go down. but to be quite a bit of reduction depending on where you are in the tax bill. i do not see anything in here. i read the entire bill. i do not see anything the home mortgage reduction or charitable giving. i do not say those things in here. i do not know what the ways and committee will do with this instruction. i m not sure what and not a resolution of let s not raise taxes on the middle class effectively does. i would encourage my colleagues at his point to impose the amendment and just adopt a budget as written. i yield back. thank you. i yield 10 minutes to my friend from indiana. thank you. i do not believe there should be tax increases on anyone the matter their income levels. the best thing we can do is turn the economy around and create jobs and poor money back into this economy. our budget and pour money back into this economy. additional taxes on anyone damages the economy. let me see a quick story about my area in indiana. when i go home and i have conversations with auto workers and mechanics were looking at hiring and small businesses, they are not going to do that if washington raises their taxes. i have someone close to me who is looking at closing because the taxes are too hi. we should not to ohigh. we should not be talking about raising taxes on anyone. we should find a way to create good jobs for anyone who wants one. our budget does that. it makes the tax code fairer for everyone. it decreases tax rates and allows americans to keep more of their money instead of higher taxes. i urge my colleagues to approve this budget. i yield back my time. thank you. let me conclude by saying this. all the heard is that we need to raise taxes on other people. that is what we have heard from the other side. that is not a solution to fix what is wrong with the fiscal situation. higher marginal tax rate hurt economic growth. we saw this. he lowered the tax rate in a created an economic boom. reagan lowered rates to 50%. we had another economic boom. lowering tax rates, under the reagan tax reform, we had economic activity. that is where revenues will come from. program tax reform and not by trying to raise taxes. that is not what we are proposing. the point was laid out early. there is nothing in this budget that does that. the ways and means committee needs to come up with the way to produce program tax reform in a manner that does not raise taxes on anyone. we all want a healthier middle class. i don t that the balance of my time. 42 seconds to spare. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for a one minute close t. thank you, mr. chairman. i m going to sponsor the amendment. when that comes up, assignee on. we will have some bipartisanship for sure today. sorry. i hit the wrong button. ok. thank you. nevermind. there is $1.1 trillion shift. this budget says nothing about getting rid of corporate jets are companies that send jobs overseas, but makes the assumption we will come up with this money and i tell you it will be on the backs of the middle class. the fact that we are assuming we will get rid of the affordable care act all of the revenues, there are so many assumptions in here. we might as well hire people to tell them to grab rainbows. i hope you will support the middle class and the sentiment. all those in favor, say aye. aye. all those opposed to, say no. no. rochon requested. quested.call [clerk calling role] no. no. no. no. no. no. no. > no. no. no. no. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. no. no. no. mr. chairman, the ayes are 16 and no s 21. the amendment is agreed to. any other amendments? i have amendment number four at the desk. uhan?ersholo mr. chairman, i amendment is offered relating to the health care of seniors. the gentle lady is recognized for nine minutes for her amendment. i amendment regards cuts to medicaid. it covers primary care for persons with disabilities, children, senior citizens, and the poor. it ensures that senior citizens will not lose coverage for their care. it will also ensure one in five medicare beneficiaries like my mother who are eligible for medicaid receive help paying their premiums and out-of-pocket costs. this amendment rejects the repeal of the benefits for seniors provided in the affordable care act. the law granting medicaid that affords states to ration care for the sickest. this is the only way the budget is able to save more than 800 billion in medicaid. this approach is misguided. many to strengthen medicaid and not cut it. this would put seniors at reader risk and losing critical health services and posts special health care to those who need care. they could lose her health care coverage. this budget preserves tax for the wealthiest americans will ever die seen health and financial security will jeopardize health and the financial security of evil who rely on medicaid. we all know that funding levels would not to keep these overtime with healthcare costs, nor do the keep pace and increasing beneficiaries. elderly population will grow faster than the population as a whole. as a result, the block grant funding levels will fall further behind. block grant hunting would not reduce underlying healthcare costs. shifting those costs and risk to state providers and beneficiaries. they could reduce the size of the programs by reducing deficits. slashing funding would have devastating consequences for the millions of seniors and nursing homes. people with disabilities and pregnant women and low income families that rely on medicaid for life-saving care. seniors and those with disabilities make up 25% of those who rely on medicaid and account for nearly two thirds of the medicaid costs. without medicaid support, more than responsibility for caregiving falls on families families and primary caregivers like myself. we need to provide that care. funding falls further behind. the need for services for seniors living on limited income will likely face serious difficulties getting the care that they need. in new mexico, the most recent person to receive medicaid services under the medicaid waiver program was on the list for eight years. hoople getting on the list today can expect to wait for 11 years. these are people in desperate need of services. which of the current entity hospice for personso with cancer or his occult therapy for someone like my mother or physical therapy for someone with a mother who was sent home without the ability to care walk for herself? should services be eliminated or she people wait for years to get the care they need? turning this into block grant will result in a state bidding to make such severe choices. this budget wreaks havoc on healthcare in this country. this would lead to an increase in uncompensated care. in my state, medicare accounts for about 25% of all healthcare expenditures for hospitals hospitals, nursing homes, doctors, and community health centers. it would become more difficult for these providers to maintain adequate staffing and upgrade equipment and keep up with necessary facility maintenance. some hospitals and other healthcare providers in new mexico, this is devastating. these cuts would strain the healthcare infrastructure at a time when we should be investing in healthcare infrastructure that is called for in the affordable care act. block grant medicaid shifts healthcare to the states, dividers, caregivers, and patients. this is bad medicine. i asked for your support of my amendment. i yield to the gentlewoman from florida. i thank her colleague for offering this important amendment. since 1965, medicaid has provided that fundamental safety net for american families. it allows them to see a doctor for sto. it allows all families across the country to live in dignity when they have a parent or a grandparent at the end their life that needs to go into a nursing home or medicaid provides services for them to stay out of the nursing home. when i think of medicaid, i think of an older couple that i have visited a couple of months ago in tampa. married for 60 years. they keetake care of each other. they have a therapist that comes by every day to make sure that they eat. when i think of medicaid, i think of the older couple on my street. the gentleman was diagnosed with alzheimer s. with alzheimer s. they could not take care of him in the home. so thank god for medicare, that it was there to ensure he got into a nursing home where he could be taken care of. she did not have to lose the house. it is a lifeline. many of your neighbors, nearly half of all people 85 or older have alzheimer s. medicare pays for long-term care services. you are removing that lifeline from families across this country. i think it is shameful. this vision for america under your budget cuts that lifeline for our older neighbors, the blind, the infirm. think about this important investment keep them out of nursing homes. that will not be there for millions of american cammies. these are not our values in this country that will not be there for millions of american families. these are not our values in this country. these are costs of long-term care what it is a last resort. this amendment corrects this problem. it is one the most fiscally this policy to block grant medicaid and cut it, it is one of the most fiscally irresponsible portions of this budget. i urge you to adopt the amendment. i yield back. i yield to the gentleman from to the gentleman from wisconsin. this is where the rubber hits the road on this amendment. this document describes medicaid as yet another welfare program. over half of them on this program are kids. the rest are elderly or disabled. only 15% of this possible chordal eligible of this of these are dual eligible. if the straw men attack on the poorest, youngest, oldest and most vulnerable citizens and to say to characterize them as welfare recipients who need to come out of the ham hock, this is an example of the doublespeak this committee speaks to when they make these deep cuts in medicare. the time has expired. if the gentleman will yield briefly, to add clarity to this, the medicaid expansions on affordable care have not occurred yet. no one who is currently under the medicaid program is affected by this. state flexibility gives states the ability to customize the plans to meet the needs of their populations. but the increase in eligibility has not occurred yet. the discussions about taking away is about giving the states more flexibility to make their programs work better. with that, i yield. i find this a compelling comment about the budgetary i believe our state has found a way to deal with this. when you talk about taking care vulnerable populations, our budget is providing more care, leaving nobody out. this budget does not even cut services or benefits. a kiss states flexibility to design it gives states flexibility to design programs. this budget increase is funding medicaid. the solutions will never be found in washington. my home state of indiana enacted a popular proposal that serves unique needs of people in our state. it is rated high the amongst consumers of the plan. i have met with many health care centers and in my district who have been who have backed me to make sure when it comes to providing medicaid, that we asked for the program to be expanded. because they love the hip program. it protect the vulnerable. it is compassionate. it works. it is a shame and the administration shows [indiscernible] this budget corrects the president mistakes and gives states the flexibility to better target medicates resources. the result will be better access. the vulnerable populations of children and women that is how we have done it in our state. we are asking for the same flexibility and this budget provides more protection for ball will people than anything in your amendment. i would like to yield back to my colleague pierre i associate with everything the gentlewoman has said in this regard. i would add that we have the same goal that this amendment describes. i think we have a better way to do it. it is arrogant for us to sit here and think that we know best what to do with the people s money. the people know best what to do with their money. when you give the states and local government the flexibility to determine these three things who is poor, what the poor need in health care and how the poor should get it, you could go further with the dollars allocated for these kinds of programs and get better results. that is what happened in indiana with the help the indiana plant. cover for because more people without adding one said the extra cost. medicaid is for the poor. medication not be for the middle class terry it should be for the elderly and children who cannot afford it. when i talk to middle-class families in my district, i hear it will be their highest honor to take care of their parents in their old age. at their expense. not put them off on some federal program run by unnamed bureaucrats. that is the wrong thing to do. let s give the people the flexibility to handle health care for the poor the way they see fit. this amendment discusses the doughnut hole. that was supposed to be patched by the affordable care act. i could prove it here that the provision has the effect of increasing drug prices. i would like to enter a 2010 letter from the congressional budget office to the chairman of this committee in response to his questions about cost. without hearing objection [laughter] the chairman requested analysis of the specific doughnut hole provision from cbo and cbo confirm these requirements will drive up health care costs. one prostrating, the premiums of drug plan will increase along with the increase in net drug prices. ideal freeman its to mr. woodall i yield three minutes to mr. woodall. i was visiting with one of the primary-care doctors in georgia recently. i appreciate your frontier state. we would like to be role to be a rural frontier state, too. he said i m the only doctor in the county could fix medicaid. you folks in washington can put as many people on medicaid if you want to but i cannot fit any more folks to my front door. i do not think this budget schists costs to states, providers this but it shifts costs to states and providers. unless the but it will double medicaid spending unless the budget will double medicaid spending, there will still not be any doctors in rural the georgia taking those patients. at issue with my colleague who called it is honorable and shameful. i take issue with my colleague to call the this honorable and shameful. this is an opportunity for people to get care they cannot get today. to have talked folks talk about how they know better how to take care of my neighbors and my neighbors and i did. i understand the president is trying to do this through waiver programs and i appreciate the flexibility he is offering. this goes one step further to offer complete state flexibility gary for those left in scene -. we will serve them better with this state flexibility then this committee could ever hope to do. i have to oppose it. i wanted to make a final point. it s the threat to seniors health care. the real threat is that medicare is going bankrupt. the president s health care law raids more than $100 billion from medicare. we are dealing with these issues that impact seniors. i see my mom and my vote, i am voting for my mom. seniors are getting ripped off. coverage is being cut. premiums are increasing. the president s health care law remains in place, only lead to further rationing of care for seniors and. i appreciate the intent offer by my colleagues. it preserves traditional benefits. and saves medicare for the next generation. i see the seniors in my district every weekend when i go home. i am how the house republicans produce a budget that will protect the programs they rely on. i ask my colleagues to defeat this amendment. mrs. grisham is recognized for a minute. i appreciate the comments of my colleague but i will assure you that is a promise he will not able to keep, mr. wall mr. woodall. i am sure you never had to tell the parent with children with a disease that will the gentleman yield. no, i i am going to finish my comment with thank you for asking. this is less money, less support. i assure you with that means is doctors have no real it no reimbursement for patients who still need them. in the doctors i ve talked to, they are interested in their dream interest in fair reimbursement, not less. all time has expired. all those in favor say aye, those opposed say no. the nos have it. roll call vote is requested. [roll call] mr. chairman, on the vote, the ayes are 16, nos 22. the nos have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the clerk will report the yarmuth amendment. an amendment related to the health insurance for those with pre-existing conditions. the gentleman is recognized for nine minutes. thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment expresses repeal of the affordable care act, protecting benefits for americans are include in the protections against discrimination based on pre- existing conditions. kim atkins is a constituent of mine in kentucky. after the supreme court affirmed the affordable care act, she shared her family s story. here is what she wrote my daughter is one of several young adults now on our insurance until she is 26 years old. she is still unemployed and looking for work. the affordable care at sarah save a life. whenever kidneys shut down. if she was not on our insurance, she would have waited or not gone to the hospital at all. the doctor told her if she waited an hour later, she would ve lost a kidney or die. jessica is also a constituent, born with congenital heart defect that went undiagnosed until she was 24. her condition is a result of arteries being too short and then to affect of the pump blood to and away from her heart. as a result, she has been diagnosed with cardiomyopathy. she s been hospitalized 30 times the past three years. she is 27 years old and. next year because of the affordable care act, and sure as companies can no longer deny her care. but by repealing the affordable care act, republican budget seeks to destroy it and and i heard that care. for thousands with pre-existing conditions and millions of americans, the republican budget would strip them of the promise that comes with knowing you are no longer a prisoner to your medical bills. billions of dollars have been already been spent preparing for the affordable care accurate 26 years old affordable care act. up to 26 years old. but it would take away our take away their care. i go to many of them. i cannot tell you all last year s the relief i have seen the disappearance eyes seen in parents eyes in that their children and friends will never have to worry about being reinsured again in their lives. sherman has said this budget the chairman has said this budget is a replacement that would deal with these issues. we have dealt with 7000 lobbyists and probably the most complicated legislative process ever in this body. the idea we could bet on a replacement for this is something that if i were one of these constituents, somebody suffering from acquired disease suffering from a disease, i would not want to count on this congress coming up with adequate protection for those people. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and reject this very dangerous provision. i yield three minutes to the ranking member. thank you. thank you for offering this amendment. we have heard for three years it will repeal and replace. as we looked in his budget document this year during the walk-through, there is no place in here. three years later, it has been all talk. the result of it being all talk is that millions of americans will lose their ability to get affordable health insurance. as the bottom line. he has spelled out the human side of that discussion. could dirty little secret in this budget is that while it gets rid of the benefits the dirty little secret in this budget is that while it gets rid of the benefits, he keeps the savings in medicare and keeps the trillion dollars in revenue from obamacare. i am not the only source for that. every penny is in that base line come from those provisions in obamacare taxes on higher income folks of providers who will benefit as well as penalties on those who do not take personal responsibility. where are you going to get a trillion dollars to make it up? i keep hearing about the medical the bat medical device tax. and what taxes are you reason to replace it? they are all potential there. they are all in there. here is the other part of the story. this is 2023. this budget would not be hopper in balance without this budget would not be in balance without [indiscernible] it would not be in balance if you just had one of them. revenues from obamacare, not in a balanced. the bottom line of the budget is it cannot be said it is imbalanced and repeals all of obamacare. it repeals the part double help those kids the part that will help those kids. doughnut hole, it will repeal of those protections. but it balances the budget with the other parts of obamacare. . a yield a minute and a half i yield a minute and a half. this is a critical component to health care that are cheap our kids need and expect and that millions of americans as deserve with pre-existing conditions. up to half of non elderly americans have a pre-existing condition. older americans between 55 and 64 are particularly at risk. 86 & of them 86% of them have some sort of pre-existing condition. this is poor policy. there are 3 million young adults attain coverage as a result of this. this portion of the bill insurance companies have recorded a 5% increase several years ago. this shouldn t these remained. the fact they are getting rid of all obamacare means this goes. and they have the revenues they re going to keep. without the benefits that we heard that we work hard to get for our citizens here. this is really bad policy. americans will be very upset when they see this. the gentle lady from tennessee is recognized for chemistry will shield for a couple seconds? no one is disputing what is car not in the baseline. our budget last year did the same thing and the same thing the before. when you re writing tax reform, you write to hit as search and revenue levels. the revenue level is the current law in the baseline. as we do that, the entire goal is to replace the current tax code, the one we do not like. the woman the medical device tacked. the one with the medical device tax. with respect to the savings from medicare, do not take it from medicare and spend it on another program. make sure it goes toward solvency of medicare. and number of providers being cut in obamacare said go ahead and do it. we can afford it. they supported obamacare. saddam hussein we cannot. that is beginning to occur. we have to sort through where is savings legitimate that does not deny access and where is it not? that is why we have a reserve fund to deal with it just let him have done with the physicians. the ama asked for it. the republican congress wrote it and pass it. everybody thought it was great. what do we do? put a reserve fund in our budget and say let s deal with it. .et s cut spending some routes let s cut spending summer house somewhere else. one of the reasons why we re able to balance the budget is because of the new baseline. it is a function of arithmetic. i yield back. thank you, mr. chairman. prior to the supreme court ruling on obamacare, four of our largest insurers announced they would continue to cover young adults under the age of 26. they were committed to covering preventative care without providing co. insurers were committed to providing these services. about the purposes of this amendment. our budget does not tell private insurers the cannot cover those under the 26. i do not understand the necessity of this amendment. our budget repeal the president s health care law that does three things drives up the cost, forces millions of americans to lose the health care coverage they already have and raise the medicare fund by more than $700 billion. the me talk about three ways it threatens let me talk about three areas it threatens. the employer based insurance. if you talk to businesses, they are uncertain about whether they will keep the insurance. as they look at the numbers they currently have, they do not see a way to keep insurance so they will pay the penalty. cbo estimates to million americans will be forced out of employer provided insurance. if the trend continues by 2018, 8 million will have lost their employer provided insurance. in the ad want a trillion dollars in new government spending to the federal budget sheet. it threatens the health security of american seniors. and for some 40% of medicare providers out of business according to medicare trustees. in the paz bureaucrats to cut medicare in ways that will deny care and restrict assets restrict access. it fails to make the program solid. loomingicts medicare s bankruptcy will lead to reduced access to care or diminished quality of care. not good for our seniors third area, threatened state and budgets. i have a personal experience with this because i am from tennessee where we had 10 care. we tried to do this kind of program and it almost broke our state. it is nonexistent because of the extreme costs will eat up 96% of our budget. that meant no education, and a transportation three resolved 10 care. it is no longer there. i was like to yield to my colleague from georgia. thank you so much. i want to commend the gently from tennessee from observations for it. i will table this dangerous, have an washington peake the entity that decides what your health care is i will describe what is dangerous, have in washington speak to and decide what your health care is. that is what we believe is the heart of the problem with the president s health care law. the vast majority of individuals in this country gained their coverage to an insurance entity that does not exclude them for pre-existing conditions or illnesses. there are about 80 million people for whom they are exposed. but only 18 million people in the small market and individual market . the pool is large enough in other covered mechanisms. for those covered in this self insured problem, the pool is large enough. how the mechanics of the 18 million people are not challenge with pre-existing ellises and injustice pre-existing illnesses? allow them access to it, large enough so anyone individual s health status does not increase the cost of the provision of coverage for anybody else in the pool, as a very simple way to do it. it works for patients. ideal dot of my time to the gentle lady from tennessee. i yield to the rest of my time to the gentle lady from tennessee. thank you. one of the things we should be concerned about under the with the under the 26 years old group, health insurance costs for young people are going to escalate between 145% and 189%. due to the taxes and fees being put in place. many talk about job creation and the fact that you have 50% under 30 years of age are either under employed or unemployed, there are $1 trillion in taxes coming on to obamacare. the ten care program in tennessee was supposed to be $200 billion. look and with your program has already done here with obamacare. it was going to be under $1 trillion terry what we find out? it is already $1.80 trillion. i yield back the balance of my time. we have the whole the clock. we are doing it with everybody. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for a minute to close request thank you, mr. chairman. ms. black said protection for the ability of 26 year-old spent under to be on their policy was in place before the supreme court decided. but they were not doing that before the affordable care act passed. if we repeal the affordable care act, they would continue to cover up to 26 is unreasonable. they have been raising deductibles and co-payments and we ended up with we now have options for our citizens. the ability of people to be guaranteed coverage regardless of their employment and pre- existing condition. do you what to look out for the most trouble in society? this amendment does that. cox time has expired. the amendment all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. a roll call vote is requested. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] on that vote, the ayes are 16, nos 22. the amendment is not agreed to. are there other amendments? yes, i have an amendment. no. 6, creating jobs that helps didn t. that help students. the gentle lady from florida as recognized for nine minutes to request i am pleased to offer an amendment that will help close the student achievement gap across america, brings public schools and to the 21st century and boost jobs across our country. to many of american school r. denton is repaired. a report released yesterday too many american schools are in disrepair. a report released yesterday they had to let teachers go, italy maintenance. beyond that, some schools are simply plain old. i know back home, we have schools htey avthey have tried o keep up to par but many of the scientific requirements of today did not sit back into the schools of 50 years ago. a yaer 2000 study reported most shape. are in bad 50% of schools in recorded a least one building characteristics such as the roof or ventilation was inadequate. 76% of school needed funding for repairs and innovation. billions of dollars. the american society of civil engineers davy degrades a in assessing our nation s public school at the structure civil engineers gave a degrade in assessing our nation s public school infrastructure. try and many staff do a great job but it is time to focus in national effort of building and renovating some of our schools. my amendment is similar to one of the most popular pieces in the american jobs act proposed by president obama. although the republicans blocked the action, it the school modernization peace should find bipartisan support. especially since it is paid for in my amendment. it is offset by eliminating tax loopholes and deductions for special interests. one of my colleagues defended the tax loophole for corporate jets go when you weigh the equities here and think of all we stand to gain by renovating our schools with 21st century, that continued tax loophole for corporate debt, there is simply no comparison. will the gentleman yield? you have your time in just a moment. i also pay for this school modernization initiative by reducing subsidies to the big oil companies starting in 2014. this was killed back or eliminate subsidies to the major integrated oil companies making enormous profits. is it a park with the taxpayers continue to subsidize big oil companies is it fair for taxpayers to continue to subsidize big oil companies? the close some other loopholes and tax breaks going to millionaires. this is an important piece to create jobs and help our students succeed. i would like to yield. thank you to my colleague from florida for yielding on this amendment. i strongly support this amendment which seeks to present to prevent up to 280,000 teacher layoffs and put americans back to work. what could be more important than supporting the great equalizer in our country, our education system? given sequestration, our public education system is under siege. sequestration is estimated to cut to above $4 billion from program with her in the department of education from programs within the department of education. we cannot ignore the great need in this area. the largest school district in mexico has a $4 billion capital improvement need. approximately 80% of the need is for vertical construction, with more than 20 million americans unemployed or underemployed, and one critical step we can take to put people back to work as provide our school districts with the resources to make needed improvements to their school facilities. investing will create jobs and strengthen the economy and boost teacher has to the moral performance. i urge a yes vote. i yield back. at this time i will yield. thank you for yielding. the across-the-board budget cuts implemented through sequestration represent a serious threat to our public schools and states and cities that rely on federal education funding. the kind of education that will allow them to compete successfully and to the global world economy. that means potential job losses for teachers, affecting thousands of students. we cannot afford to lose one job. in the name of protecting egregious tax breaks for the favored few. it is also an opportunity to provide support for construction trades as we rebuild our country s crumbling schools. while insuring kids can spend their days in safer, more modern schools. it is a smart, targeted investments that create jobs and helps our school districts save resources and allow them to focus tight, local budget directly on learning. i urge my colleagues to support this. i yield back. i yield back. all right. opposition. still learning how to use the mic. pardon me. thank you, mr. chairman and the gentle lady from florida hearing her amendment. the all want our kids to be in great schools. i think we have very different visions about what the best way to provide that opportunity is. on this side of the aisle, we believe the best place to make those decisions in local level as with families and teachers and students were together to make those things happened. several mentioned cuts in that education. this budget does not cut education. in the first year of our baseline, we spent $1 billion more than the prior year. in the testier, we spent $16 billion more than we did the first year. this amendment is an example of how our nation got into our current debt crisis. you pick a compelling cause, one that is hard to disagree with and tell everybody if you throw billions of dollars at it, we will make a difference. we can all feel good about ourselves that we go home. the problem is that thousands of these decisions lead us into a set tuition where we have a debt crisis. talkingoon you re bought real money. this amendment represents a massive and unprecedented shift in the un education funding dynamic. with the federal government threatening to take over one of the most fundamental responsibilities of state and local communities. such federal intrusion could have severe unintended consequences, including possibility that states and local communities and investors come back away from the responsibility to build a maintain safe and models. the federal government has chosen to maintain a limited role of the fiscal contraction and focus on adequately funding programs that increase student achievement. that limited role and school construction should be maintained. beyond that, this bill is a veiled stimulus package wrapped in pretty clothing. it provides $47.5 billion of the $55 billion in the first two years. the last to molested not work. we should not be doing it. with those comments we cannot allow or afford to lose a generation due to inadequate schools or underfunded schools. speaking as someone who went to public school i understand the importance of making sure our schools are adequately funded. we like the parents in other areas want out children to be above average. how did we achieve this? talk to any teacher and you will realize not only do they need their own compensation, a condition not the one thing they should not go wanting with supplies. who is closest to the kids? the parent. after that, the teachers, the classroom, administrators. this is where the decision should be made and where we should put the emphasis. but the gentleman yield for a question over here. in just a moment. how do we do this? local the learn act. that would allow startes to reclaim the money they are now sending to washington. they would be in charge, the parents, the teachers and community. with that, i yield back. the gentleman from texas, mr. flores. thank you. i want to correct one of the statements made. i did not defend corporate jets. i never said anything like that. what i did was the fun of people that build them, fly them, maintain the very those are middle-class workers. the should not target one particular industry over another. thank you. i yield back. but the gentleman from oklahoma. thank you. let me tell you a story on this. 10 years ago, oklahoma city saw our schools were crumbling, saudi infrastructure falling apart. we made a decision to reinvest in the community. those schools were rebuilt and over the last 10 years, we have watched a metamorphosis of oklahoma city school turnaround. as our community took care of our facility. what made a difference? a decision made by local folks to invest in our community and turnaround our schools. it is made a huge difference, in our community. i am a big believer in this. my mother is an educated. my older brother is in. my degree in college was secondary education. i m very passionate about these issues and people in zacarias taking care of the issues and empowering parents to make the decision close to their stated. this is a huge amount of money. a breakdown to $857,000 for each school. n to $857,000down 80t for each school. example happened during the stimulus. we wanted healthier kitchens in school through the rural districts in my area came back immediately and complained they would like to go after that money but were unable to do it because you have to have a full kitchen in every school. i understand the intent of it but i think we are the wrong approach to do it. the moment we take it on, we treat strings that should not be there from the federal level. i yield back. the provision was paid for to the closing the loopholes. i know of no one defending our current tax code. with that, i yield the balance of my time to mr. calvert from california. i thank the gentleman. we cannot take on another federal program here. this could have severe unintended consequences, including state and local communities thinking the feds are going to take this responsibility on and we cannot. we just cannot afford it. one of the troubling things to me, it will be subject to the davis-bacon act. some states may have let the many states do not some states may have its but many states do not. offices have found those requirements increase the costs of school buildings, costing taxpayers building billions of dollars. bliss amendment as cause more problems than the this amendment has caused more problems than they [indiscernible] colleagues, my amendment is to create jobs by modernizing and renovate schools across the country. to give us a real shot in the arm, bring our schools into the 21st century. provide the tools for our student debt they deserve. it is a four. it is paid for. that is the difference in vision. it is far more important to the future of america to redesign high schools to focus more on science and technology, engineering and math. is it a federal program? no. this gives money into the hands of families, parents, teachers clamoring for it. we can help reduce the deficit by boosting our small businesses in jobs now when they are needed. thank you. time has expired. all those in favor say aye. those oppose say no. roll call cote is requested call vote is requested. [roll call] doubt that will be on the topic of discussions. order. questions to the prime minister. number one mr. speaker,. the prime minister. and whether this morning i had meeting with minister colleagues and others and in addition to my duties in this house i shall have server, further such meetings later today. we ll know the prime minister believes there is an alternative to his deb and is loss of the aaa credit rating. but is he aware that his backbenchers and some of his cabinet believe there is an alternative? to him. [shouting] what this government is delivering is 1 million private sector jobs, fastest rate of new business creation in this country s history. we are paying down the deficit by 25%. we ve got immigration by a third. we have a long hard road to travel but we re going in the right direction. thank you, mr. speaker. i m sure the prime minister will wish to add his condolences to the family and friends of christine atkins who was murdered on a bus in my constituency last thursday morning. the government is right to introduce minimum custodial sentences for people convicted of threatening someone with a knife. but with the prime minister agree with me that it is time to introduce a legal assumption that people carrying a knife can potentially use it and should attract a prison sentence so that we can redouble our efforts to rid our communities of the scoue of guides? i think my honorable friend speaks for the whole house and a beautiful country for his absolute repulsion at the truly horrific crime big a whole house i know will wish to join in sending our sincere condolences to christine atkins hi family. we do take knife crime extremely just a. that is why we change the laws of any adult who commits a crime with a knife can be expected be sent to prison. and for a series should expect a very long since. i will happily look at what you suggest and into my right honorable friend is currently reviewing the powers available to the courts to do with a knife possession and you ll bring forth proposals in due course. ed miliband. [shouting] mr. speaker, in the light of his new view on alcohol pricing can the prime minister tell us is there anything he could organize in a paris? [laughter] in a brewery? i i have [shouting] i would like t organize in the brewery in my constituency a party to which he would be very welced to celebrate the shadow chancellor should stay for a very long time on the front bench. [shouting] ed miliband. he obviously couldn t tell us about his policy on alcohol, minimum unit pricing, mr. speaker, but i think the reality is he has just been overruled by the home secretary on this one. [laughter] let s turn to another thing the prime minister said we can t trust it in his speech last thursday he said and i quo, the independent office of budget reform are clear that the deficit reduction plan is not responsible for low growth. this is not what they say and will be acknowledge that today? first point just returned to his or her question, the interesting thing i will answer his question to the interesting thing about british litics right now is i ve got the top team i wanted and he s got the top team that i want, too. and long may they continue. now, on the issue, on the office for budget responsibility, the point of the obr is that is independent and everyone should accept everything that it says. and i do. but should look at what he says about why growth has turned out to be lower than it forecast it and it said this, we concluded from an examination of the data that the impact of external financial shocks the key reading export markets, and financial sector and eurozone difficulties were the more likely explanations. that is what disappear into be fair, to be fair to the shadow chancell, in his wn press release he said that the obr is and i quote, yet to be persuaded by the case that he makes. and after telling, his plans are more spending, more borrowing and more debt, the country will never be persuaded. [shouting] mr. speaker, the prime minister is clearly living in a fantasyland. he wants us to believe, he wants us to believe that the head of the office for budget reform wrote him an open letter the day after his speech because he enjoyed it so much. because he agreed with him so much. actually we believe fiscal consolidation measures can reduce economic growth over the past couple of years. and yesterday, mr. speaker, we learned that industrial production is at the lowest level for 20 years. that set alarm bells ringing for everyone else in this country. why doesn t it for the prime minister? the first point is that manufacturing decline is a share of our gdp faster under the government that he was a member than at anytime since the industrial revolution. that is what happened. the decimation of manufacturing industry under 10 years of a labour government. that is what happened. he quotes from the office for budget responsibility and i accept everything that they say. but let me quote from the introduce of fiscal studies institute of fiscal studies that says that borrowing under labour would be 200 billion higher because he accept that forecast? ed miliband. it is good to see of this second week when he s getting in he had nothing to say can has nothing to say about industrial producti. has nothing to say about what s happening and usher production by his own business sector, a guy who s supposed to be in charge of these issues is going around telling anyone who will listen to the plan isn t working. this is what he says. we are now in a position where the economy is not growing in the way it had been expected. and he goes on, we don t want to be japan with a decade of no growth. mr. speaker, when his own business secretary calls for them to change course, is he speaking for the government? let me tell him what is happening in the industrial production. we are now producing more motorcars in this country than we have at any time in our history. exports to all the key markets in terms of goods like india, china, russia, brazil are all increasing very rapidly. none of things things happen on a labour government in the trash our economy, racked up the debt and nearly bankrted the courage. when it comes to capital spending i think we should spend more money on capital and that s why we re spending 10 billion more than the plans of the government of which he is a member. i think we should be using the strength of the government balance sheets to encourage private-sector capital, and that s why for the first time in its history the treasure is providing those guarantees. the fact is he read the economy. he put in place plans for pital cuts and we are investing in the country s infrastructure. ed miliband. mr. speaker, nevermind more car production. and look, and i think, things are so bad they sent out bareness over the weekend tsay and i quote, she has full confidence in the prime minister. [laughter] and that he has and i quote, support from large parts of his party. [laughter] mr. speaker, mr. speaker, [shouting] may be he s even got a support from a large part of its cabinet. and just a week from the budget, the home secretary goes out making speeches about the economy. i think the part-time chancellor should talk to him about the budget. and then she gets told off by the children secretary who is hiding down there for jockeying for position. isn t the truth it s not just the country that has lost confidence in the chancellor and his economic plan, it s the whole cabinet? the weakness in his argument is that my party has yet in the support for his leadership. as long as he keeps, as long as he keeps the shadow chancellor. but i have to say order. it is courteous for members to let s hear his answer. we are again is the argo welfare? he s got no argument on welfare. where is he argued at the deficit? he has nothing to say about the deficit. we are his plans for getting the economy moving? he s got nothing to say. that is what is happening under his leadership. out to be nothing apart from debt, debt, and more debt. ed miliband. mr. speaker, is absolutely hopeless and today s exchange is showing. a week out from the budget ago and economic policies than, a prime minister that makes aut as he goes alone. a gvernment that is falling apart and all the time it s a country th is paying the price. [shouting] six questions, not a single positive suggestion for how to get on top of the deficit that he left. not a single suggestion for how to deal with a massive welfare bill that was left. noticing suggestion for how to improve standards in our schools. but mr. speaker, i do know what he has been doing. over these last months. i do know what he has been doing, because i didn t order. this answer must be heard. the prime minister spin and it is a particular one because i have here a copy of this diary, and i know what he has been up to. these are the tennessee is held to raise money for the trade unions in the last few weeks. we have had the gmb, the tsf a, 2.7 million pounds, dinosaur after dinosaur, dinner after dinner. they pay the money, they get the policies but the country would end up paying thprice. [shouting] thank you, mr. speaker. it s national apprenticeship week. over 1500 businesses are now offering apprentices and will be coming and apprentices of people the prime minister join in taking on apprentices carefully, offering the vocational trade, training and praising all the great young people that are going to see a positive future for our great nation? i will surely join audible for an invoice is about national apprenticeship week, and it is an important moment for our country because over the last two and a half years we ve seen 1 milln people start apprenticeships. the run rte is that over half a million a year. i think this is very important for our country. what i want to see is a new norm where we recognize that people who leave school should either be going to university or taking part in an apprenticeship. that is the agenda and ambition we should suffer young people as that for our country. dianna thompson. isn t it the case the couple who separate could still at the nursing home without begging tax rule of wine? given this glaring loophole discouraging marriage, shouldn t his [inaudible]? spent first of all let me just say once again, it is only the labour party that could call welfare reform a tax. a tax is when you are money and the government takes away some of your money. what this is is a basic issue of fairness. there is not a spare room subsidy for people in private rented accommodation in receipt of housing benefit. so we should ask why is there a subsidy for people living in council houses getting housing benefit. it is a basic issue of fairness and this government is putting it right. thank you, mr. speaker. [inaudible]. tomorrow, open their brand-new state-of-the-art bussing plant. does my right honorable friend agree with me that a significant investments show that this government is making britain well-equipped to win the global race? and i think honorable friend is right. we do see investment taking place by large multinational companies like natalie recommend that one of the most competitive tax systems anywhere in the world. kpmgrecent report that in just two years we ve gone from having one of the least competitive corporate tax systems in the world to have one of the most competitive corporate tax systems at work of what is change is the right of this chancellor and discovered that has put ride the mess made by the ty opposite. order. question five. closed question. question five spent i m glad to be leaving leadingn what should be the goals when expire in 2015. in my view we should put the strongest possible emphasison attempting to banish extreme poverty from the world and is the focus on extreme poverty that should come first and foremost. i also hope in replacing and enhancing the millennium development goals we can for the first time look at what i called the golden thread of things that help people and countries out of poverty which includes good government, lack of corruption, the presence of law and order, justice and the rule of law. these things can make a real fference. mr. speaker, india proceeding so far i didn t expect to hear myself saying this, but can i commend the prime minister on the work that he is doing on the panel and seeking to hold to the international development budget, at a moment when we re asking people this weekend to give generously through comic relief? can identify there s one group of people ho were not included in the millennium development goals who are often excluded from society as well as education, and that is those very disabled young people who face grinding poverty, the face ill health and the disadvantage of those disabilities? will give priority to them in the development in terms of the next two years? he makes it a good point about helping disabled people across the world and we should make sure that the framework we look at properly includes the people he says. on the wider issue of our aid budget i know it is contingent i know it is difficult but i believe we shouldn t bre a promise we made to the poorest people in our world. and i would also say to those who have their doubts, then, of course, there is a strong moral case for our aid budget but there s also a nation security ca. it is remarkable that the broken countries, countries affected by conflict, they have not met one single millennium development goals between them. by helping and in these countries offer this feature to work as well as aid work, we can help the poorest in our world. thank you, mr. speaker. in 1997 the window excess deaths in the mortality data. but as early as 2002, there were 120 excess deaths. that figure only rosier upon your and yet labour health secretary after labour health secretary did nothing apart from all the in total, 1119 excess deaths occurred, some of those arwere patients who died in ther own feces. does the trick for not putting that the scandal underlying the fact that labour supposed place to be part of the nhs is the greatest lie [shouting] order, order. members major the first of all the queson was too long mr. canseco asked the treasury to bear in mind what is his was built and what is it with a very brief onto and then we can move on. prime minister spitting my response but is to respond quickly and i commend for what he did. but it s important to remember that it is this government has set up a proper independent inquiry into the disgrace is that happened at and instead that everyone has to learn their lesson, including minister in the government opposite from what went wrong. but i think we should listen when he says we should not seek scapegoats. but what we do need to do right across politics, right across thiacrossthe south, right acrosr country is in any culture of complacency. they do some fantastic said many to many parts we do see as he said very that figures and we needo deal with them. naomi long. aie duke we will be since the signing of the good friday agreement. there are significant challeng challenges. [inaudible] does the prime minister a greater must be renewed urgency? can be explained in light of this positive engagement, there are both governments as joint custodians of the agreement and moving the source because it is again too long. the prime minister spent thank the honorable lady for question at harvard constructive work in northern ireland under the whole house wants to wish her well with the difficult that she and her office have faced in awaits. here spent i think there s responsibility for the british partnership to work together and we had a very good set pieces we. i think the greatest possible responsibility lies with the institutions and it s great they are working and the agreement has been together but i would appeal to first minutes of the data minister, all of those involved in the assembly is put away the conflicts of the past, work on a shared vision for the people of northern ireland, start to take down the segregation from the peaceful, the things that take people apart inorthern ireland. i m the savings from those ings invest in a better future for everyone in northern irela ireland. question eight. [inaudible] sorry, i look for to visiting soon. [laughter] i did very much enjoy my recent visit when i went to the toyota factory in which many of her constituents work. and i m sure i will be back there, soon. i know my right honorable friend is quite rightly taking a proactive role in leading trade mission to india and other countries. does he agree with me that the small manufacturing companies like those based should also be given the chance to play their start in driving britain s exports to emerging markets like india, china, and the rest of? my honorable friend is right, we have improved our performance in terms of exports and goods as i said earlier to these key emerging markets, but the real challenge is to get smes exporting to if we could increase i think the figure is from one in five to one in four would wipe out our trade deficit, which create many jobs and a lot of investment at the same time. i ve led tde missions every single g20 country apart from argentina and other forward to doing more in the future. i will certainly include smes and perhaps some from her constituency. and the slaughter. [inaudible]. there ll be replaced by private health clinics. some of those leading to the closure program have already the[inaudible] i don t think he s right any part of this question. the first point i would make is the nhs in northwest london is going to be getting 3.6 billion pounds this year. that is 100 million pounds more than a year before under this government we are increasing the investment. the changes that he talks about, if you refer to the health secretary, he would of course consider whether the canges are in the best interest of patients. that is the right process to follow. thank you, mr. speaker. the prime minister will i am should be aware of the strong contributions the british economy be made by the inbound tourism industry in this country. does he therefore share my concern as expressed by the torrentslliance changes to the does are likely to this press the number of visitors coming particularly from brazil? what we did to ensure the border agency does not become a gross suppressant to the uk? i m happy to say o my friend of the national security council met recently to consider some of these border issues. and has decided not to put the pieces onto brazilian national. we want to welcom the brazilians to make sure we enhance border security. but actually in defense of the home office, the time spent in terms of processing visas has been great improvement there, and we re looking at a number of steps to make sure we attract tourists from the fastest-growing markets, including china and elsewhere. thank you, mr. speaker. does the prime minister except that families face a triple whammy in childcare, costs are going up, the averge family has lost over 1500 pounds a year in support? therefore does he also except that he may e made announce next week to help with the cost of childcare will be small remedy to a crises of his own making? i don t except with the audible that he says. it was this, that extended the number of hours to three and four-year-olds that if introduced for the first time childcare payments for nder two years old. we ve lived too many people out the tax altogether. someone on a minimum-wage working full-time have seen their income tax bill cut in half. i know that she wants to try and put people off to a very major step forward where we ll be helping people who work hard, want to do the right thing, the want of child care for the children but that is what will be announcing and i think it will be welcomed. thank you, mr. speaker. britain is in the global race not justwith our traditional competitor economy but with countries like brazil, russia and india and china. ahead of the budget next week and mright honorable friend of the house what assessmt he has made of whe we are likely to finish in the race? if we abandon our deficit reduction program over but on some magical faraway money, as the party opposite recommends? my friend makes a very important point. one of the most important reasons for continuing to get our deficit down isit is essential to have those low interest rates that are essential for homeowners and essential for businesses. and if we abandon those plans, if we listen to the party opposite would have more spending, more borrowing, more dead comics at the things that got us into this mess in the first place. mr. nigel dodds. tnk you, mr. speaker. the rising price of petrol and diesel at the pumps which is set to rise to near record levels in the very near future is causing real problems for our constituents in terms of the cost of living. that, we know what the primers and the government of already done. but can he reassure that tells the house today about further action to cut the toxic tax and bring petrol and diesel prices down to help hard-pressed motorists, families and industry? of course i will listen carefully to what the right honorable gentleman says. what i would say is that petrol and diesel prices are 10 p. a liter lower than they wouldn t be had we stuck to the absolutely toxic plan that were put in placeby the party opposite. so we have taken action and we doing everything we can to help people with the cost of living. that is why we re listening to get people onto the lowest gas or electcity tariff, why we ve taken 2 million people out of text of my we are frozen the council tax in the hope that we can do more to help people. the prime minister is right. britain does have a good record. but the rising price of fuel is causing real problem. i hope there will be good years in the budget. fuel duty increase inherited from labour will be canceled. spent i m very grateful for what my honorable friend says about what the government has already done on fuel duty to he did admit to say that also we took the step to help ireland committees like some of those that he represents with special conditions to try and help with what is a very major aspect, people live in his constituency don t have a choicin many ses but to use a car. we have to respect that. hank you, mr. speaker. will be prime minister benefit personally from the millionaire s tax cut? [shouting] let me say to the honorable gentleman, i will pay all of the taxes that i am into. but let me just point out one small point. let me point out one small point. i had a letter this week [shouting] i had a letter this week, i thought people might enjoy. it s from ed who lives in camden and it says this, i ama millnaire. i lie in a house where two main pounds woody guthrie combination of inheritance and property speculation. i am worried that if i sell my house and i buy another one, i will have to pay the 7% stamp duty that the wicked tories have introduced. under labour, what we are talking of them is we never made the rich pay more. what should a champagne cialist like me do? [shouting] [laughter] i know that the prime minist recently visited the ceer in oxford, and i m sure he shares my view that they did fantastic job of helping disabled people people committee more effectively. what guarantees can the prime minister give that communication aids will be able to more young people that is currently the case to everyone w could benefit to do so? i m really grateful to my honorable friend for raising this issue, because the center which has been now in my constituency briefly in oxford has done incredible work for people with disabilities over many years. they are making the most of extraordinaire changes in technology. when i visited them recently we look at hold draft of ways which we to make sure the nhs is making these things available to more people and a very committed to working with him and the center to make sure that happens. russell brown. hank you very much, mr. speaker. prime minister conjugated promise to protect and defend budget in its entirety. that you didn t. the defence secretary who promised to balance the budget at the national dioffice said he failed. prime minister, will you now guaranteed that there will be order, order. the honorable gentleman has been here 16 years. he shouldn t use the word you injury. sorry buddy makes the rules. quickly, fish the question. will a commitment be given at defense budget would be protected for the in this parliament? the commitment i can give him is that the 38 billion black hole that we inheritedas been got rid of and freeze the budget across this part at 33 billion pounds gives us the fourth largest defense budget in the world. but we re determined to use that money to make sure we equip our forces with what they need for the future and that is a massive contrast to the record of the government which he supported. you can t be a good nurse without the things. i think we needto return to the sorts of values. jim? thank you. prime minister i don t expect you to know the full detail. we must get out of the bad habit of members using the word refer togeer chair. mr. speak, i don t expect the prime minister to know the full detail on the responsible but against the background of all of those together. 1% increase in the over 5%. it s a matter for the it s not a matter for me. the point i would make is tht public sector pay we have frozen at 1%. we do think that is fair. i think the extraordinary thing about the position of the party opposite. they support the 1% icreas for public to workers. they think the people on welfare shld be getting more than 1%. at seems to be an extraordinary set of priorities. more people die. i know, the prime minister wants to reduce avoidable early mortality and cut violent crimes. will he meet with me and urge him and understand the evidence based behind minimum policy and it will critically undermine the future of effort of doing something with this. i would be happy to. we have had many addition discussions over the issue. there s a problem with deeply discount alcohol with supermarkets in other stores. i m determined we ll deal with this. we published proposals and looking at the consultation of the results we have to deal with the problem of having 20 cans of lagger available in supermarkets. it has got to change. thank you, mr. speaker. i m sure the prime minister is aware of the tension today we are meeting with them outside 12:30 and we would like to invite the prime minister to join the party group who will be meeting them on the important date, the fourth anniversary. yeah. when i look at the honorable lady says, i have a meeting almost straight after with the leader of the party to propose the proposal. it may not be possible to arrange my diary. but i my say we must support people in old age. [inaudible conversations] would with the prime minister agree with me that the results of labor failed to gain anything? at all? the leader of the opposition are completely and utterly have completely utterly without any support in the country as whole. [cheers] and i welcome the honorable gentleman, welcome the honorable gentleman. i think you ll get alo at any time today? without objection, so ordered. all right. welcome, everybody. i want to start by thanking the members of this committee. as you know, writing a budget is a tough job. because you have to make choices. everybody pitched in and i m grateful for the help of our members of the committee. we sat around a table for a number of weeks just like families and businesses do assembling a balanced budget. i m also grateful to ranking member chris van hollen. this committee has a long tradition of bipartisan cooperation which he and his staff continued. we have a good working relationship even though we have very, very spirited debate on the issues that we don t agree on. i know we will have spirited debates in the hours ahead but we ll hold these in the spirit of good will that has defined this committee for a long time and we should. we owe it to the country. after years of trillion dollar deficits, we owe the american people a responsible balanced budget. and for the third year in a row, we in this committee will be delivering it. this time our planned balance of the budget in ten years without raising taxes. how do we do it? lukken where we are going. our national debt is bigger than our entire economy. unless we change course we will add another 12 trillion dollars to our debt. that will weigh as down like an anger. lenders will lose confidence. they will demand higher interest rates. when they do, interest rates will skyrocket on car loans and families. as interest rates rise, and debt payments will overwhelm all other payments in the budget and that will overwhelm the economy. the most vulnerable, but that is who suffers. the debt crisis will be the most predictable in our history. i could go back like it was yesterday. i remember seeing all that was happening amongst our eyes. i remember the panicked meetings. at the moment it was a crisis that hit us by surprise. look what happened in the meantime. look at the trillions of dollars of wealth loss. look at the millions left out of work. look at the perils that have gone empty. that caught us by surprise. this coming debt crisis is the most predictable effort. we know what it will do. we have a moral obligation to prevent it from happening in the first place. we will collect courses much revenue as last year. the deficit will be nearly one trillion dollars. clearly, spending is the problem. it is more than an economic problem. by living beyond our news we are stealing from our children. but it is immoral. wrong. unfair. when not only balance the budget in 10 years by putting their right reforms in place, prepaid down our debt. the last creditors, the more of our future we will control. the truth is our debt is a sign of over a week. our government is doing too much. when the government does to marja does not do anything well. it returns death the government to its proper limit. we believe there is no clear role for the federal government. we wanted to be to do its functions well. when it does too much and tries to do everything it does that do anything very well. if by balancing the budget we will promote a healthier economy and help to promote jobs. it would increase the deficit. if we were to decrease the deficit and out it would have immediate positive results for jobs. it will guarantee a secure retirement for seniors. it will expand opportunity for the young. for a bad economy, no chance to get to pay those lane those lay those loans back. they deserve better. we want to get out of the business of cronyism. picking winners and losers in washington. it will keep our country save. as part of our plan, we cut wasteful spending. i know some friends will object but on the current pact we will spend 46 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. under our current path we will increase spending 5 percent every year. under our proposal 3.4% each and every year under this budget. because the qana group will grow faster than spending, the budget will balance by 20203. the debt will drop to over half the size of our economy, and a path to get this debt paid off. the most important question isn t how but why we balance the budget. it budget is nothing more than a means to the end. it is not be tied the spreadsheet. not an accounting exercise. it is the well-being of our people. i look at this as a citizen, a husband, a dad. it is not fair to take more to spend more in washington. it is not care if it is not right to let medicare fall apart. medicare is going broke. if a grant. i understand not everyone shares our views and i respect that difference of opinion. all i ask is that you join in the effort. if you do not like your plan, offer your own. we are to be able to agree to abolish the budget. it is a reasonable goal, one we should share. for the balance panic a balanced plan that never balances is not balanced. i look forward to the debates i had. when we hear the word on its being thrown around, for if it has more spending fueled by higher taxes that never balances death is not do justice to our economy. it is unfair to the people. i want to yield to the ranking member. thank you mr. chairman. i want to thank the members of the committee. thanks to the ingenuity and resilience of the american people and the actions taken by the president and the congress four years ago, we are continuing to recover from the worst recession since the great depression. we still have a long way to put people back to work and accelerate small-business hiring. we must and can steadily reduce our deficits and reduce and stabilize the debt. we should do that in a way that reduces the jobs deficit rather in a budget that immediately makes that the deficit worse. this republican budget failed that very simple test. the nonpartisan independent budget office has shown the approach taken in this budget will result in 750,000 fewer american jobs by the end of this calendar year. it will reduce economic growth this calendar year by one-third. we cannot afford to do that. they estimate the next year, 2014, it will cost 2 million jobs. the issue is not whether we should were seduced the deficits but how we should do that. we believe budget should be a blueprint for economic growth that leads to greater economic mobility ensure prosperity. we believe we should share responsibility for reducing the deficit rather than providing tax breaks while balancing the budget on the backs of our middle of the middle class. this republican budget takes an uncompromising approach to addressing that approach. we were told that the presidential election was going to give the american people the opportunity to approach the balance. their shares to reject the lopsided approach reflected in this budget. the american people rejected the idea that we will give additional tax cuts to the wealthiest americans at the expense of middle class taxpayers and vital in busman s and an infrastructure that helps provide the heart the hard wiring for our economy. investments that have helped to make the u.s. and world powerhouse. let s take these one at a time. these will finance tax cuts for the wealthiest are raising the tax cuts on the middle class. the budget calls for dropping the tax rate from 39% to 25% and cutting the rate for millionaires are more than one- third beholding all other revenues constant. just last fall the non-partisan tax policy center analyzed if phar-mor moderate plan to reduce the tax plan to 28%. it would raise the tax burden on individuals making under two and $2,000 per year. this budget proposal which provides even bigger tax cuts will raise the taxes on the average family by $2,000 but does not pose does not close does not close one tax cut local for corporate jets, big oil companies to help reduce our deficit. while providing this windfall to the wealthy, this proposal that s investments that are vital to upward mobility and rising middle-class wages. it protected pentagon spending of more than doubles cuts in non-defense discretionary. it takes it down and doubles them. those are the funds that help our economy. shortchanging that will result in national decline but until those in the past. this also violates our commitments to our seniors. it reopens the prescription drug donut hole. did the house large prescription bills on seniors. it slashes medicaid by $810 billion over 10 years. two-thirds good as seniors with disabilities. for everyone under 55 rustan paying all their life into medicare insurance they will receive a decline in value, leaving them to eat the difference. let s look at how this hits the political targets in 10 years. it uses the revenue by the new highest tax rates, a measure that was opposed by the overwhelming majority of house republicans. it is ironic that new revenue could not make a measurable difference in reducing our deficit. that revenue is essential to bring this to the political balance. fisa this would not balance without obamacare. it is simply wrong to say that this budget but balances and tenures and repeals the obamacare. this does eliminate important benefits and patient protections in obamacare. it will eliminate the provisions to deny it based on pre-existing conditions. and will limit the benefits and the tax credits for people to abort health care in the exchanges. it will eliminate tax credits for small businesses but keeps the rest. it keeps all the parts that reduce the deficit. yeah remember the savings that we achieved in the affordable care act like ending overpayment and modernizing the system without reducing benefits? remember that? we were told that would result in hospital shutting down and nursing staff and nursing home shutting down and other consequences. those scare tactics were not true ben puhn board today. that is why those savings are included in this budget for us today. remember the tax revenues for obamacare is that we heard about? those on the higher income individuals and the fact that obamacare will expand coverage and those penalties all of those are included in this republican budget. the dirty little secret is this would not balance if not for their revenue savings in obamacare. look at this chart appear. in the 10th year that is from obamacare. another hundred billion dollars is from the fiscal agreement in january. half a trillion dollars is from obamacare. i want to point out once serious consequence of having it both ways. by eliminating the obamacare benefits you will civilians you will severely undermine the health care system. many will go belly up. that is because the budget reduces the budgets to those providers wallow eliminating what provides them with more insured payments for that care. that formula, taking what you want and discarding what you do not, is a recipe for chaos. mr. chairman, the election is over. the american people reject the uncompromising approach in this budget. next week, democrats in the house will present an alternative budget that meets the priorities in a balanced way. i hope as we move through the budget process over the next months, we will make the hard twits is necessary to make a balanced agreement that is good for the country, one that does accelerate economic growth now and in the future. one for shared prosperity. thank you. before i yield, i want to make a couple points for the record. you have to use the base line you get from the cbo. does the baseline raise the revenues because of current law? yes. what we say is get rid of the ugly tax code with all the obamacare tax increases and such. with the talks tax rate going up with the top tax rate going up on small businesses, you replace all of that with the obamacare cat taxes with a better tax system. and get rid of loopholes to a lower rate. that is what tax reform is. with respect to the spending issues, the medicare provision, here is what obamacare does. it takes $716 billion from medicare to spend on obamacare. we and the rate of the program so all of those dollars go to extending the dollars of obamacare. we have witnessed testimony after testimony, whether it was cbo or cms, tell us you cannot spend the same dollar price. we say do not take that money from medicare and put it in obamacare. goes towards medicare. one more point. we have learned through the past that price controls are not working. we put reserve funds in our budgets to address these inadequacies. last year, a reserve fund. you come up with money to save in other places and present prevent from getting cut. they did that and they did not get cut. we sent up the same process for other medicare providers from that that we believe those price controls will damage. this has not been held out yet. all of these changes have not occurred yet. we want to see what happens. some of the providers asked for this to happen as they supported it. we are setting up the same kind of process to make sure all the medicare dollars can be addressed if we have network problems, just like we addressed the point is this. we do not like the president s healthcare law. we think it will do great damage to health care. we proposed to repeal it but replace it. our medicare plan is a lot better than 15 people telling seniors what they can and cannot have. this will be a long debate today. i look forward to it. i would like to yield two minutes on the importance of actually doing a budget. thank you. a budget is about priorities. there are priorities the american people overwhelmingly support. some include getting federal spending zero at under control. danny the economy moving again. getting our debt crisis under control so we may preserve the american dream. these are precisely the priorities that are incorporated in our house republican budget. american families know the federal of rigid federal government should not be spending more than it has. the budgets that have been proposed by the president in the past have never gotten a balance. gotten to balance. the president missed the legal deadline of february 4 to send in a budget. past experience tells us when he gets around to it, it will likely not balance, either. american families cannot live this way and neither should the federal government. democrats have not adopted a budget in four years. they will do one this year because of the no budget, and no pay bill. we look for to see in that budget. the test is to see whether or not they can pass that budget out of their own committee and chamber. we re which it will enough democrats be willing to endorse a plan with more so washington can spend more? that is not working. the house republican plan puts an end to special-interest deals. the house republican plan will create a healthier economy. more american families will realize their dreams. a path to prosperity ensures we are honoring our commitments to america posses priorities. america s most important priorities. the republicans care for the poor and the sec by report and the sec. and the sick. i am proud to join my colleagues in this plan. with that, i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey. two minutes to the john in new jersey. thank you. the static status quo is unacceptable. our budget stops the spending money we do not have and advances common-sense changes to strengthen our nation. this budget will finally restore an open america for business again. to say democrats have failed to lead would be a drastic understatement. every second grader in this country is on the hook for nearly $53,000 of national debt. the president and the senate democrats continue to overspend every day, increasing that burden on their children. there is a cost to debt, and that is interest. this year we will spend $224 billion on interest. senate senate democrats have not been in the debate, failing to pass a budget for 1400 a spirit with the president, back on february 4, by law, his budget was due. now, guess what? we are still waiting for it. democrats failure to budget is unacceptable and unconscionable. every family in america understands the necessity of a balanced budget. the president and senate senate democrats could learn. from families across america. families do not have the luxury of waiting for the next election cycle. neither does washington. it is time for responsible for responsible action. you talk about why it is necessary to tackle the debt crisis. what the consequences of the debt crisis are. i would like to yield two minutes to the senior kemp senior member of the committee. any of you have ever been to spain? i have. it s a really nice place. nice, hard-working people. great food. at one time, it was a very prosperous and growing economy. spain does not have a prosperous economy today. half of all people under 25 years old cannot find a job. the unemployment there is what hours was in the depth of the great depression. there s people on government provided health care go and because they have had to cut back hours of service and operation, people cannot get the health care they need when they need it. why did this happen? they did what we should not do. they spent too much, borrowed too much, and let it go on until they had a debt crisis. when that hit, they had to make corrections in all of this stuff overnight. now, they have this economy. we cannot let that happen here. balancing this budget is not about making cpas like me feel good. it is about not having what happens in spain or greece or japan. this is not speculation. what has happened is out there and we can see it. a balanced budget is about creating prosperity. it is about creating jobs, having the health-care promises we have made to the people something we can fulfill. under which our young people can find a job. under which people can prosper and live the american dream. that is why balancing the budget is so important. i yield back, mr. chairman. two minutes from for the gentleman from california. thank you. i am generally an optimist. our growing debt crisis gives me and should give all americans real concerns about our future prosperity. all you have to do is calculate the complex fiscal challenges before us. truly understand the consequences for american families if we fail to act. during the clinton years, spending per capita was $8,175. testing for inflation, spending per capita during obama s tenure has been $11,822, a 45% increase. have the american people benefited from the increased spending? we ask 46 millions million americans living in poverty, they would say no. government spending as a portion of gross domestic gross domestic project has reached 24.42%. as we have seen with european nations, there seems to be a tipping point in the spending to gdp ratio. we are very close. what effect does this level of debt have on our economy? greece, the unemployment rate is 26%. this is real stuff. it is not going away. this budget puts the brakes on non sustainable spending levels and will allow our economy to grow. balanced budget by reducing the rate of spending, increase is not a radical ideal, but it is possible. botched it is not a radical ideal. it is responsible. i look forward to today s debate. the american people deserve their president and election and elected officials to have a comprehensive and frank discussion. no question today. we know we face at a historic challenge. the debt is expanding rapidly. neither the president nor our friends on the other side of the aisle have offered a solution. if you look at the budgets we have seen and the budgets we fully expect to see, there are only three things in them certain. the first is ever higher taxes. the second is ever larger government, bigger, bigger, bigger. finally, expanding debt. and budgets that never come into balance. the republican plan offers something novel, a budget that actually bounces in 10 years. balances in 10 years. in the following decade, it begins to fade down the enormous debt and we wrap up. that is the solution we ought to take. not a radical budget. it still allows for increases in spending over the next decade. 3.4% every year. most americans would like to have a race that size. a raise that size. but it comes into balance. if our friends will work with us, i think we will achieve that. the choice is clear and the time is now. the american people expect us to act. i yield back. thank you. i would like to expand to the german from california. osh to the gentleman from california, mr. mclain talk mr. mcclintock. thank you. this budget reflects a great struggle between american families and their governor over whether they or the government can best spent the money they have earned. it is that simple. this budget bands the struggle slowly back in favor of the families by returning to them the freedom to spend more of their own money and make more of their own decisions. every billion dollars spent in washington, $9 is taken from the average family. either in direct taxes or indirect increases. it is about time we started thinking about these norris in family-sized terms. ultimately, the numbers have a very real impact on those families who are struggling to balance their own budget. set their own priorities, and look at their own. and look after their own needs. only what a government spends, either now or in the future. today, we passed out more than one-third of a cost to our children and financed the remainder through a tax system in which politicians pick winners and losers through an appallingly unfair and distorted tax code. this would do away with those distortions that ship capital away from economic expansion in into the service of political objectives. this budget calls for flattening and lowering tax rates than to insure no american family plays a quarter of earnings to the federal government. pays a quarter of earnings to the federal government. those nations that have adopted similar reforms have been rewarded with explosive growth. in short, freedom works. it is time we put it and america back to work. this budget does not. this budget does that. thank you. i would like to yield. thank you. families balance their budgets each and every year. we believe washington should do the same. to balance the budget, we need spending cuts and economic growth. balancing your budget is not extreme. it is common sense. most of us would agree with that. as would our constituents. after four straight years, there are still about 23 million americans looking for work and the economy is barely growing fast enough to keep pace with the increase of population. it is time we take a look at our spending. if government spending were really the key to growth, we would be in the midst of an economic boom. clearly, that is not the case. in addition to our reckless fiscal policy,another huge obstacle to our growth rate now is the complicated tax code. it would be interesting to note every year, americans spend about 6 billion hours and $160 billion filing tax returns. the tax code is ripe for reform. it is a bipartisan consensus in favor of lowering tax rates and running the base and broadening the base. to ensure we have fairness, simplicity, and economic growth for families and small businesses. the purpose of tax reform is not to take more money just to spend more, but to create jobs and increase wages for working families and promote upward mobility. i look forward to working with my colleagues here on the budget committee to advance and do a comprehensive tax reform. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. two minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma. a pleasure to have the opportunity to sit and have this conversation about the future of the nation. it is very important back home. we understand words have meeting. meaning. if we think certain people if we raise taxes on certain people we do not like or make it so every family can succeed. this has meaning last home. back home. a family had a conversation. they said we need tax reform and have stability. they are a small family owned truck company. one request was, can we simplify and stabilize our tax code so we have predictability to look at it in the long term. it s not big multinational corporations. this is a family-owned trucking company. they want the same thing every other business wants. it is the same thing with a small manufacturing company. they have manufacturing and it provides energy supplies to companies all of the world. one big request is some kind of stability in our tax code. we have the highest tax rate for businesses in the world. it makes it difficult for businesses to complete globally. we live in a global economy but we ignore global realities of where we are in our tax code. it is important we fix that. it is important we fix our code not just to grab more revenue from the american people, but to increase american economic activity. we lose track of the fact that this year is now forecast to be the highest amount of revenue coming into the federal treasury in history. no other year receiving more money into the treasury than this year. this is a moment for us to look seriously at our spending. let s look at families and family owned businesses. next, i would like to yield to wisconsin to talk about how the budget is designed to provide upward mobility and give the states the tools they need to craft these programs to help those closest to them in need. thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to talk about something i am passionate about. that is our nation s core. i would like to make one response about some of the comments earlier. there are a lot of misperceptions. a lot. i heard earlier because president obama was reelected, that was a rejection of the budget here. when i glanced to my left, i see mr. ryan in the chairman s seat and the same americans put you back in place. it is not necessarily a rejection of what we are trying to do here. i would like to speak about another misperception among the american people that conservatives necessarily really do not care much about the court. the idea of taking care of the poor is to throw a lot of additional money at them. money is not the solution here. we do not help a starving child by creating policies that keep the starving child s father or mother out of work. this budget does the very types of things that will help create and spur economic growth to put that family member back to work, to pull the child out of poverty and to give the mom and dad the self-respect and dignity of a job they so rightly deserve in our economy. we do it by the very types of things we have heard in this room that claim do not happen in this budget. we stopped capitalism and reduce and get rid of loopholes for corporations. that is often the discussion about capitalism and whether we support it. i d support capitol s and. osh capitalism. i do not support phonies and. support cronyism. republicans can find agreement on that. to the degree that we take a look at what we can do, not necessarily throwing money at it. throwing money at it does not often get the result. to the degree we can find a way to come together in this room and in this chamber, to come together with a logical, clear thinking solution to put americans back to work is the fastest way to end child poverty in this country. it is a goal i really feel that both sides want to see happen. our differences are not that we do not want children to have food. or poor people to eat. our difference is how we get to that. i think this budget takes us the fastest way to a permanent record permanent cure. and with that, i yield back. i want to thank you for your leadership and commitment to produce a budget that balances in 10 years. that is an excellent accomplishment. i know many of us are pleased to be a part of it. i look forward to its passage. the solutions this budget has are built on the premise that every american family understands. we cannot keep spending money we do not have. even under this budget, the federal budget will spend $41 trillion over the next 10 years. i know i certainly cannot visualize what that looks like. it is a lot of money. we have to be good stewards of that kind of money. step of asking how much we can show we can throw it these programs. we should be asking, are these programs working. one thing that is not working in america today is medicaid. recipients are having a trouble finding doctors. medicaid pays half of what a doctor can give for his or her services in the private sector. the result, the health outcomes, are poor. studies suggested there were 13 more 30% more likely than those without insurance at all to die. who is proud of that? the program is also pushing our states closer and closer to the brink of fiscal collapse. states spend more on medicaid than any other expense. obamacare is only making the problem worse. we should look at what reforms are working on the ground. i point to two states, rhode island in indiana. and indiana. rhode island, the flexibility, they agreed to cap medicaid expenses for five years. they put recipients in a managed-care program and it is working. in indiana, we were able to cover 40,000 more people in the help healthy indiana program. without adding expense to our budget. let s put these funds to the state. get the federal government out of the way and let s follow the examples of rhode island, indiana, and many other states with ways to make the program work. we can do what was suggested and help those who need it. i yield back. i am emphasizing how this budget focuses on establishing a secure retirement for our seniors by saving the medicaid program. but like to deal to georgia. i would like to yield to georgia. thank you. as pleased as i am this is a budget that takes on challenges we agree have to be taken on. that is a survey they took a few years back where they found that more college-aged americans believed they would see a ufo than a social security check. as you know, the program is in march from their shape in much stronger shape. than is the medicare program. my mom and dad just went on medicare. there is a real concern about what the future of the program is and every single of the member of the body knows if we fail to take on that challenge, the program will be destroyed. this budget goes into that challenge knowing troy s can make all the difference in the world. getting my mom and dad involved in part of the solution could make all the difference in the world. it is absolutely time to stop measuring our success by how much we put into a profit a prospect and begin measuring it by what we are getting out of the process. the challenge it talked about for medicaid patients, it is becoming true in the medicare segment of the population, as well. it does not matter what kind of car you give to the american citizens if they cannot find a health-care provider willing to take it, they have no access to care. kicking the can down the road has been popular for decades upon decades. the committee has taken on the challenge of addressing it, solving it, and taking it off the list of american seniors more than any other body in this town, i am grateful to fail this town, i am grateful to fail to
host: jonathan strong joins us on the phone this morning to talk about paul ryan unveiling his budget later this morning. we will have coverage on c-span at 10:30. jonathan strong, let s talk about what we will see in this budget plan. do we know the details? guest: good morning. he has released some of the details. he previewed the budget in an op-ed in the wall street journal that was released last evening. kind of one of the big things here is that it essentially cuts 4.6 trillion dollars over 10 years compared to current law. he is trying to put it in perspective in the op-ed, saying that under current law, government spending will increase five percent per year over those 10 years, and under his plan it will increase 3.4% per year. the message coming out of paul ryan is that we don t have to make that tony and drastic cuts to reach balance in 10 years, which is the new feature of this budget. it is similar to the plans that he has released in the past. that is what his message is for this morning. >host: so under this budget proposal, a balanced budget in 10 years with no new taxes. how do they go about this? guest: they do keep the revenues from fiscal cliff, one of the big things here, it is one of the questionable things in here. they are assuming the repeal of obamacare, which is very unlikely to happen given the current balance of power in washington. it is somewhat fanciful thinking. it would cut a lot of spending, but it is not likely to happen politically. this is a blueprint, not binding law. that is one thing that is sure to be a big point of debate as they unveil their budget this morning. host: what does he replace if he repeals the affordable care act and gets rid of it? thet: we don t know what detailed picture looks like yet, if there will be any details in that. republicans have had a difficult time over the past few years rallying around a single healthcare plan. host: paul ryan also says that under this budget they would approve a keystone pipeline, and that there would be welfare reform. and they would also overhaul the tax code so that there would be only two tax rates, 10% and 25%. guest: those are a few interesting things here. on the welfare reform, i think it says that we are going to apply the model of welfare reform to other parts of the government, to medicaid, to let states have more authority to form those programs as they see fit. the tax reform picture, and the ways and means committee, is very keen on tax reform. there are a lot of skeptics in the capital that think there is not enough trust between the two parties right now. host: jonathan strong, politically, does paul ryan have centrist republicans with him? does he have conservative tea party republicans with him behind this proposal? guest: he definitely has the heavy hitters on the tea party conservative side. who were behind the agreement to pass a budget that balances in 10 years. the moderate in the conference were initially skeptical about this, but because of some changes, they decided not to change the age at which the medicare changes would begin hitting. republicans have been promising for years that if you are 55 or older, you will not have to worry about any of these medicare changes. they were thinking of changing that at 56. there was an outcry and they abandoned that plan. now the moderates do seem to be on board. host: the washington times reporting this morning when it comes to the affordable care act, senator ted cruz, texas republican, said he will offer an amendment to delay funding for the affordable care act until the economy improves. this is an amendment to a continuing resolution to keep the government funding that the senate will work on this week. it is winning support from other republicans like senator marco rubio of florida. jonathan strong, senate democrats will also unveil a budget tomorrow. guest: the senate budget is more notable in the sense that it has been since 2009 that senate democrats passed a budget. so this is going to be a more significant political test for them. the senate makes the process more difficult for the democrats over there. in the budget they have they can only they cannot lose a single vote, or else the vote would be deadlocked at 11-11. so patty murray, the chairwoman , has to appease bernie sanders, independent from vermont, who calls himself a socialist, and also a centrist like mark warner. they are having trouble over there, so we will have to see. the next thing that happens for them after they pass it through the committee, it gets to the senate floor, and because of the procedural rules that surround the budget, it is a vote-a-rama, where any vote is germane. so the republicans will be planning any amendment that will put democrats in difficult political spots. it will be a big test. there are definitely reasons politically why the senate democrats have not done a budget for so long. now that they are doing it, they will have to reckon with these things. host: jonathan strong, staff writer with cq roll call. , here isyan s budget usa today. the headline is, third time is no charge is no charm for ryan s medicare plan. that budget briefing with public committee chairman paul ryan will start at 10:30 eastern. after his briefing, we are printing planning live coverage on the meeting on gun control. the first session happened last week. here is a look at some of that debate. committee and a subcommittee have held three hearings on legislation related to our purpose of voting bills out today. while i believe addressing violent requires examining more than guns, guns were newly guns were the near exclusive focus of those hearings and will be the near exclusive focus of the bills at the committee sees fit to markup. all of us strongly affected by new town, all of us want to take effective action to prevent future tragedies. but we have different deeply held approaches to do so. what we are talking about today is freedom not only guaranteed by the constitution but what the supreme court recognized as a pre-existing right of self- defense. individuals do not need the government s permission to defend themselves. today gun violence rates are at the lowest level in 50 years. this is a tremendous compliment. there are many reasons for it, including longer incarceration of dangerous criminals, police practices. this drop in gun violence has occurred even as there are more guns in the country than ever before. it has occurred after the supreme court has found the second amendment to be a fundamental right and after many states have increased the ability of law-abiding citizens to own guns. the drop has also occurred despite any new federal gun control enactment in almost 20 years. but a majority of the committee seems determined to impose more gun restrictions on law-abiding citizens. consider the assault weapons ban. this bill represents the biggest gun ban proposal in our history trade a similar ban was enacted in 1994, and the justice department s own studies failed to show that the band had any effect or in some of my colleagues i want to quote donald rumsfeld absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but the assault weapon ban did not work . just this year the deputy director of the national institute of justice wrote that, on assault weapons ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. but rather than trying something different, the first bill on the agenda is an assault weapons ban. it is based on how guns look, now the damage they do not the damage they do. nar 15 is prohibited while nar 14 while an ar14 is exempt. the guns that it bans are not ones that are used in the military. as they are semi automatic. they are in common use for a banning large capacity magazines also fails rational basis scrutiny when the bill exempts a class of shotguns that can be continuously reloaded. the bill is not like passing a law that criminalizes speeding. it is like banning the manufacture of cars with hood ornaments from having the capacity of exceeding 65 miles per hour while exempting trucks from the same requirement for it at the hearings, the justice department did not endorse a specific ban but said that nonetheless a band could be constitutional. they did not suggest what level of scrutiny courts would apply to a bill with second amendment implications. they also said that they would develop an analysis of the bill s constitutionality. but it seeks but it speaks volumes when we are about to markup such a bill, and that analysis is not forthcoming. i think it is necessary to point out that had this build in law at the time, sandy hook still would have happened it would not have stopped a mentally disturbed person while stealing a gun that this bill would not have banned from his mother, shooting unarmed children for several minutes before police arrived. background checks without notice, we were given an entirely new bill late yesterday. i know the sponsor says he does not intend to create a national gun registry, and i accept that as his intent. i would just say that the deputy director of nij recently wrote that universal background checks can only be enforced if there is universal gun registrations. some stated that criminals are foiled from buying guns because they don t go to gordon to gun stores. they recognize that prohibited persons do not now submit to background checks, although they obtain guns, which is why they want to expand checks. but they fail to recognize the criminals will not be any more likely to submit to expanded background checks them they are currently. they will go around supposedly universal checks, steel guns, or by them in the black market. when the universal background checks don t work, registration will be imposed to enforce them. when that doesn t work because criminals will not register their guns, we may be looking at confiscation. there is a refusal to consider gun control of law-abiding citizens does not work or if gun control works, we would expect to see that places with stricter gun laws would have less crime than those where it was easier for law-abiding citizens to have guns. instead, law-abiding citizens obey the law, criminals don t. under federalism, states and localities are laboratories of experimentation. results of different approaches coming out. then the federal government learns which laws work better than others as it considers national legislation. but that is not what is argued for gun control. we are asked to adopt nationally policies that have not worked at the state and local level. we are told that poor results in places with gun control are due to more lenient gun control for the vicinity. but if that were true, one would expect more crime in the suburbs where guns are lawfully available than in cities where they are not. and the states where guns are not easily able to be purchased than in states where they are not. however, this is not the case. restrictions on gun rights of law-abiding citizens do not work. again, rather than trying to approach a different approach, supporters of gun control not only want to double down on failed strategy, they want to impose on the nation as a whole despite the second amendment. i do think that action can be taken on gun trafficking and straw purchasing. but because those are actions by criminals that occur across state lines, i am glad we have a bill on that subject on the agenda. i appreciate the efforts of the chairman and other senators to be receptive to changes to the original legislation. when that bill comes up, i will speak about that. the final bill on the agenda is school safety bill. that bill originally had been a normal cost at a time when we were entering sequester. however, senator boxer and senator warner, the bill s sponsors, have shown let s ability on spending announced spending amounts and other issued. i wanted to know i appreciate appreciate those efforts. mr. chairman, republicans will make sure that we get the finality of these bills, and not meaning any criticism, they were not ready to consider to be considered last week. we will raise a fairly small number of amendments, which is how the committee process works. we are not spending we are not preventing any of these bills from being voted on in a timely fashion. a number of democrats made statements about these bills last week, and i know that my members on my side would like to also. we thank you for your cooperation. the trafficking bill, stop illegal trafficking firms. as per normal procedure, i will amend it with my substitute, which is based on the text of the collinsville. i assume there is of the collins bill. without objection, the bill as amended by the substitute is now open for further discussion and amendment. if i could, i would start the discussion. before i make a statement, i have not talked to senator sessions. do you folks want to make statements overall, or are you ready to go with the straw purchasing bill? it is on the agenda now, so the chairman has the right to bring it up. or do you want the right to this? i would have statements on both, but i would be happy to address the straw purchasing bill. out about you, senator? stay with the amendment process. can i speak now? sure, go ahead. i greatly appreciate the substitute amendment. i have offered an amendment to the bill which i will discuss separately. federal legislation needed on the subject of straw purchasing and gun when i conducted my oversight of the justice department failed operations fast and furious, i was told by whistleblowers that there were gaps in federal law regarding straw purchasers which should be addressed, and this is our opportunity to do it. mr. chairman, you have worked with me on the bill thomas making many changes at my request. i trust you think so as well because you have included the changes in the new bill. the new bill and your substitute amendment also included a revised ill by senators jill a brand and kurt on the subject of gun trafficking. those revisions also reflect changes that i asked senator jill a brand to make, and it would be worthwhile to outline all the changes that have been made to the bill since they were first introduced. i think they demonstrate good and senator senatoe gillibrand. d s bill wouldrang have given states and localities a one-way incentive to a dress new gun control measures and force prosecution and prosecution and incarceration of the federal government and created for the first time a situation in which violation of state criminal law was an element of federal offense. she took that provision out at my request. i raised similar concerns about the language in the chairman s bill. senator gillibrand also made major and minor suggestions, clarifying what was intended to commit a crime, the gift exception, altering the directive for the sense for the sentencing commission and others. the chairman has also made changes to his bill at my request compared to when senate s 54 was originally introduced. it is now addressed only at straw purchasers, not only at all transfers on behalf of another. this allows people to buy for people as part of a legitimate business. it preserves private sales. now the bill goes to actual straw purchasers. those who purchase a gun on behalf of a precipitate person, senator gillibrand, you removed references a violation to state and local law, made changes regarding sales to persons who do not reside in the state. you took out language concerning false statement on the forms. separated the rules for purchase from licensed dealers and those of private sales, also limiting the bill to engaging indirectly in the conduct that is already illegal. you have protected the right of law-abiding citizens as i have outlined in ways i believe were not protected in either the original straw purchasing bill or the original trafficking bill. as a result of the changes to each bill and to their combination in the substitute, the bill now covers only criminals and law and not law-abiding citizens. since you have made good shown good faith, i will demonstrate mine as well for some on my side believe the bill needs more work to resolve outstanding issues now between now and when the bill goes to the floor area that is something i hope will happen with the chairman s help. with that understanding and if my amendment is adopted, i will vote to report your bill today, and i thank you for what you have done so far. thank you, i appreciate that. you and i have worked closely on this, as we have on a number of things. our bill is tough on criminals. as it is on prior sellers and buyers of firearms. but it is done in a way that we can engage we noted a lot of your concerns are now reflected in my substitute amendment. i understand the intent behind the amendment that you are raising. i am concerned that the amendment can the operation that is properly supervised, including terrorism and drug investigations. we all agree that the government should never permit guns to be transferred to dangerous girls as happened in fast and furious. to dangerous criminals as happened in fast and furious. arresting a straw purchaser immediately after a sale. having said that, the senator from iowa says we will continue to work together. prior to the time that a bill comes to the floor. so if there is no aid if there is no objection, i am prepared to accept your amendment. ok, i authored the amendment, and since you said what you just said, i am going to put my statement in the record. let me say that i am willing to consider reasonable changes to my amendment provided the changes do not harm the goals of holding the department of justice accountable for gun operations where weapons could walk. fast and furious was a debacle that will haunt the department of justice for decades. these operations need oversight and accountability, and from that point on oversight and accountability, i think that is an area where i have to draw the line, if you will take that into consideration after the bill gets to the floor. without objection, the bill is amended by the amendment of the senator from iowa. are there other a nimitz? mr. chairman? senator corn and senator cornyn. mr. chairman, i believe the stop illegal firearms act would amend statutory authorities to target weapons if the senator would hold just a second. senator hatch has a statement he wants included in the record. without objection. it involves a prior find, that the amendments we just accepted my concern is that this bill is a solution in search of a problem. straw purchasing for the purpose of directing guns to people who cannot legally obtain them is already a crime, and so we doubled down and say this time we really mean it when in fact the real problem, i think, in many instances, is the lack of prosecution of existing crimes i the department of justice. as i have said earlier and i will say again, i have difficulty explaining to my constituents back home how passing more laws they go in and forced make them any safer. while i understand that the desire to act, to seem like we are doing something, i worry about the disconnect between the action and any solution to the problems that we all are concerned about. and i also worry, mr. chairman, that this legislation, which has been shared with my staff about the last 36 hours, we have not had an adequate opportunity to try tovet it and understand what these ramifications may be. and i would hope that we could try to work with your staff and work on a bipartisan basis to a dress the concerns we have ash to address the concerns that we have. you are talking about the amendment that was introduced and circulated on monday. today is thursday. my staff advises it was circulated yesterday. it was introduced on monday. my staff tells me we got it yesterday. the point is let me give you an example. the bill would make it a crime punishable by up to 20 years in prison for a person to attempt or plan to buy a firearm as a gift or raffle item. if the person negligently fails to know that the recipient is ineligible from purchasing a firearm. this bill would make it a serious felony for an american legion employee to negligently transfer a raffle firearm to a veteran who suffers from ptsd. that example and i am sure there are others causes me concern that we are getting ready to vote on a piece of legislation when we do not know what the scope or the consequences of the legislation are. which to me councils taking our time and making sure that we understand what the impact will be, rather than passing legislation that will have unintended consequences that none of us would endorse, but which in our haste to try to show that we are doing something we end up creating that unintended consequence. you are talking about your amendment i am talking about s54, stop illegal trafficking i understand, but are you offering an amendment? i am not offering an amendment. thank you. if there are no amendments, the clerk will call the roll. i want to share something on that. mr. chairman, i do express concern about the penalties in this legislation. it is difficult to write. i have some concerns about it. in general i support the concept of what you are doing. i think the department of justice has said there are areas in which they are not able to effectively enforce these laws, and they need better legislation. i am inclined to think that is so. although i would know to my colleagues, if you provide a gun to someone intending to use it in a drug crime or robbery or murder, you are you an eight or or a better aider or abe ttor, which makes you charged with a crime, and that is prosecutable today. i have prosecuted these cases. if you lie on that form, you are subject to false statement, and the penalties are in the code set forth. i suppose if the person leaves the country, like in this situation we had at the border where the guns go into another country, all you have got left maybe is a violation of the paperwork regulations. that might not be sufficient to properly punish a person, or it may leave difficulty. there is valuable legislation here. but i am a bit troubled hearing from last week. see it all at c-span.org. live now to capitol hill to house budget committee chair paul ryan as he releases his budget for 2014. good morning, everybody. what we have here is the house budget committee am a republican majority, putting out yet again a budget that addresses america s needs. a budget that balances the budget. it is a path to prosperity, a responsible balanced budget. we believe we owe the american people a balanced budget, and for the third straight year we have delivered rate we balance this budget in just 10 years. this is a document, a plan that balances the budget in 10 years. the house budget committee has spent the last several weeks working together with each other just like families and businesses do around the country. we have been assembling a budget so that we can make sure our country can live within its means. it is a reasonable goal, balancing the budget, and we keep we cannot keep spending money we don t have. that is the basic acknowledgment, when you are budgeting like families and businesses do, that you cannot continue to kick the can down the road and spend money we don t have. how do we do this? we cut wasteful spending, repair the safety net so we can help those in need. we protect and strengthen key priorities like medicare, which is going bankrupt. we foster a healthier economy so we can create jobs and grow more wages. you see, balancing the budget is not simply an act of arithmetic , not just getting expenditures and revenues to add up. it is a means to an end. it is a means to a healthier society, programs economy. that is first and foremost why we are doing this. let me walk you through the charts. if this thing works there we go. here is essentially what we do to begin with. this budget cuts spending by $4.6 trillion over the next 10 years. the government has historically paid a lot more, spent a lot more. we match revenues with expenditures. so our budget matches spending with our income just like every family and business must do throughout america. in fact, we bring deficits down right away. this shows you how our deficit path goes down precipitously to begin with to the point are we end up with a surplus in 2023. in the 1990 s, democratic president worked with a republican congress to balance the budget. this is a goal that both parties have been able to achieve consensus on achieving in the past. it is something we ought to do again. number 3 this is the picture that should scare everybody. this is the picture that shows the path we are on today. we know without a shred of doubt we are consigning the next generation to an inferior standard of living. we know just like in europe we are facing a debt crisis in this country, and a debt crisis hurts everybody. but the people who a debt crisis hurts the most are the poor, the elderly, the people who get hurt first and worst in a debt crisis. so we are addressing the most printable debt crisis in this country s the most predictable debt crisis in this country s history. the green line shows you the debt reduction path we achieve by putting this budget into law could only will we balance the budget, we will pay off our debt to give children a debt- free nation. at this time i would like to turn over to one of the distinguished members of the budget committee, one of our ways and means members who will talk about progrowth economic policies. by including progrowth reforms like tax reform, we are making it easier for businesses to be competitive. let me turn it over to diane black to explain exactly what we are doing. thank you, mr. chairman. our budget is an opportunity to change the course of our nation. we have a responsibility to avoid the debt crisis, as the chairman has already said, and the move forward with a prosperous future. common sense and math tell us that balancing a budget requires two things cutting spending and economic growth. a huge obstacle right now to this is our obligated tax code. today the tax code is nearly 4 million words long and about 60% of our taxpayers need to hire professionals to help them prepare their returns. every year americans spend 6 billion hours and $160 billion filling out their returns. clearly something is wrong. now, our budget paves the way for tax reform, and it reaffirms that the ways and means committee will pass comprehensive progrowth tax reform legislation this year. now, this budget builds on bipartisan consensus in favor of lowering the rates to create jobs and broadening the base to ensure fairness and simplicity for our families. the purpose of tax reforms is not to take more money from our families to spend more money here in washington. it is to create jobs and to increase the wages for our working families. i look forward to working with my budget members and also the ways and means committee to advance comprehensive tax reform this year to help us to strengthen our economy, reduce our deficit, and get americans back to work. thank you. at this time, i would like to turn the podium over to the vice-chairman of the budget committee, dr. tom price from georgia. thank you, paul, so much. budgets are about priorities, priorities that the american people overwhelmingly support including getting federal spending under control, getting our economy moving again so folks can get back to work, and getting our debt crisis under control so we may preserve the american dream for future generations. within our path to prosperity, our budget. this past to prosperity is the way to a responsible balanced budget. american families across this great land know the federal government should not spend more than it takes in. we agree. sadly, the budgets proposed by president obama have never, ever, ever gotten to balance. the legal deadline for the president to present his budget to congress this year was february 4. it is now march 12. past experience tells us when he does bring his budget that that one will not allen s likely either. american families cannot live this week. cannot live this way, and neither should the federal government. we want the american people to keep more of their hard-earned money, to say than to spend and to invest as they see fit. senate democrats have not adopted a budget in nearly four years. they will do one this year because of the no budgetact that was passed in the house earlier this because of the no budget, no pay act that was passed in the house earlier this year. we look forward to seeing their budget. the next test will be whether or not they can pass the budget they introduce. will enough senate democrats be willing to endorse a plan that taxes more so that washington can spend more? that washington way simply is not working. the american people are sick and tired of political games being played with our economy where special interests and backroom room deals seem to dominate policymaking. the house republican budget finally put a stop to that. so washington uses hard-earned tax dollars in an accountable and effective way. now, we wonder will the white house and senate democrats be able to say the same thing about their budgets? or will we just see more accounting tricks and budget gimmicks and wasteful spending? this path to prosperity, this budget will create a healthy economy where job creators are hiring, job seekers are finally finding more jobs, more work, and more american families and entrepreneurs are realizing their dreams. this past to prosperity and shores we are honoring the commitments that americans have most as priorities. that protect our national security, cares for the poor and sick i repairing safety programs, and expands economic opportunity for every single american. republicans will protect these vital programs while we control spending and solve our nation s debt crisis. our hope is that democrats see these vital programs as something they want to say than strengthen, not simply to demagogue. we believe in the industriousness and the ingenuity of the american dreams of the american people. it is time the government starts acting worthy of the people that we represent. iq. thank you, dr. price. this is not only a responsible, reasonable balanced plan, it is also an invitation. this is an invitation to the president of the united states, the senate democrats, to come together to fix these problems. we don t think it is fair to like to let programs like medicare go bankrupt. it is did not fair to take more from hard-working families to spend more in washington. a budget is a means to an end. an and is the well-being of the american people. the and is the growing economy that produces upward mobility. it will provide the economic security that we need for families. it will help secure retirement for seniors and expand opportunity for young people having a hard time finding careers and jobs in the stagnant economy. the final point i want to make is and i mentioned this to the president the other day we want to revise the budget process so we have regular order. that means let s do our jobs. that means we want to pass a budget here in the house. we are very pleased that the senate is passing a budget or will attempt to pass a budget. what that means is reviving a process that is not in the back room but that shows how we are going to accomplish these goals. we want to revise this budget process so at the end of the day we can have a vehicle to get something done. i don t think the president disagrees with that. this is an invitation. show us how to balance the budget. if you don t like the way we are proposing to balance the budget, how do you propose to balance a budget? are we going to continue to be complicit with never balancing the budget and never and therefore gather an inferior standard of living? this is a specific plan that shows how to get it under control. it is our vision for a program of, upward mobile society. the final point i would make is this. far too long in washington we measure success of our efforts by inputs. how much money are we spending on these programs, rather than measuring by output how are they working? we have put so much money and welfare programs, poverty fighting programs, yet we have 46 million people living in poverty. is among the highest rates of poverty we have had in a generation. so rather than measure how much money we re are spending in these programs, that s think about are the measures helping people? are we getting people out of poverty, back on their feet again? these are the kinds of questions we are tackling in this budget, and as we do this, we are showing the country a plan to balance the budget, to grow the economy, to get people out of poverty, to get the american dream reignited, especially for those people who have seemingly seen it slip away from them. let s take your questions. here. you spent months on the campaign trail arguing against raising taxes. most of your colleagues opposed raising taxes as part part of the fiscal cliff deal. but in this budget you say you balance in 10 years in part by using $600 billion in new taxes that you opposed. isn t that disingenuous? not at all. we are not going to fight the past because that is behind us. we are showing that with the fiscal cliff and everything that has occurred in the past, it clearly makes it easier to balance the budget. we are saying let s replace this anti-growth tax code, this crony capitalism special interest written new poll loophole tax code, with a progrowth system that helps families and businesses. lower tax rates, fewer loopholes, and we can still balance the budget in doing so. we are not going to refight the past. the law is the law, and that will not change with respect to these issues. not only do we not balance the budget faster we have always balanced the budget we can do it faster, but we want to do it better with a progrowth tax code. a key tenet of your budget is the affordable care act. we always hear that general that fights the last war, why go through that again? the second part of the question is, did you feel you had to include repeal of the affordable care act because it would not pass the house of representatives? there was never a doubt in our mind. the fiscal cliff occurred, but we don t like the tax code it has produced. therefore, we are proposing a new tax code that is more of a progrowth tax code. let s take obamacare, the affordable care act. we don t like this law. his is why we are proposing to repeal the law in our budget. more importantly, we believe that this law is going to collapse under its own weight. please know that when americans see exactly what the law entails, which they have not seen all these details are those of us who work on these oversight committees who know what is going to happen through the provider networks, they are not going to like this law. this is why we are not only repealing this law because we don t think we can afford to borrow $1.8 trillion in extra spending that it entails, we think we can replace it with a better healthcare system. that is also something we are going to be proposing. here is a better patient centered system to replace obamacare. this is consistent with everything that we believe in, which is getting rid of obamacare because we think it destroys the health care system. it will make it an inferior quality of care system, and there is a better way to go. this is something we will not give up on because we are not going to give up on destroying the health care system for the american people. we want to prevent this law, which we believe will do great damage to families and the health care system in america. senator murray, if he goes along with the president, will probably offer something of balancing the debt to gnp ratio. a little bit more of an esoteric goal. why is it so important for you to reach balance or near balance in the getting the debt to stabilize in this era is not sufficient because the debt is already too large. i would challenge the statistics on what primary balance means. let me say it another way. we believe we should balance the budget because families and businesses must do that. but we also have to get the debt down. you cannot start paying down the debt in a serious way until you balance the budget. we start running surpluses in 2023, and we get this debt under control. the problem is, the current high levels of debt we have today are a threat to our economy, and they guarantee we will destroy the future for the next generation. simply trying to make a statistic look a little less bad is not much of a budget, and unfortunately the msm and democrats and unfortunately the senate democrats seem to be going down this path. if you cannot repeal obamacare, how long will it take to balance the budget under your land? we believe obamacare will be so unpopular in this country because of all the broken promises it will prove. remember if the president remember when the president said if you like your health care plan you can keep it? americans are in for a rude awakening. the cost has been going up ever since obamacare has passed. the member he said he would do it out in the open? it was a backroom deal. you are going to see substandard health care. you will see young people not wanting to go into the field of health care obamacare. so we believe that in the interest of healthcare for seniors on in the interest of health care for families, in the interest of making medicare work better for low income people, we need to repeal and replace obamacare with a better system, a patient centered system. we will never balance the budget if you keep obamacare going because it is a fiscal train wreck. one thing that you campaigned on quite a lot during her vice presidential run, you declared $716 billion that were part of the medicare cuts as part of the president s healthcare law. totaled out by president obama, all to pay for an entitlement we did not ask for. shouldn t that count at $716 billion in your budget? and you count the savings from the fiscal cliff deal as deficit reduction. so the $716 billion, it brings you closer to a balanced budget , doesn t that go against everything your conference stands for? we believe on the revenue side that we can still have a progrowth tax code that broadens the base at the current revenue line we have. this is why we are saying to the president and democrats, you want to continue raising taxes to raise spending in washington? we can still have a very good internationally competitive family supporting progrowth tax reform. to your medicare point. let me make it really clear. what we do in this budget is we stop the rate of medicare. you have to remember, president obama took honey from medicare to spend on creating obamacare. we ended that took money from medicare to spend on creating obamacare. we ended that. there is one more point we make in this budget. we are concerned about the provider networks. you are concerned about issues that might arise. we have a special procedure to address any inadequacies we might have in the medical providers system if those situations arise. if we find just like we have found with doctors that there is a problem that needs addressing , we have a special procedure to do that. people outside this process might look at this present conference today, pretty similar to the one last year where you stood there and you we and we sat here. that s right. the good people outside this process might be watching and saying, well, paul ryan did this last year and the year before that and the year before that. and he was on the ticket, ran on this, pretty darn close. president obama ran on what he called the balanced approach, raising taxes on the wealthy and his medicare and social security position. he won that election. house republicans lost seats in the house, got one million fewer votes than democrats. senate republicans lost seats in the senate. people outside this process might wonder if elections have consequences on the budgeting process. do they? so the question is, the election did not go our way believe me, i know what that feels like. that means we surrender our principles? that means we stop believing in what we believe in? look, whether the country intended it or not, we have the second-largest house majority we have had since world war roman to since world war ii. we need to put up our vision. we think we owe the gadget we owe the country a balanced budget, solutions to the problems that are plaguing our nation. a debt crisis on the horizon, a slow-growing economy, people trapped in poverty. we are showing answers. it elections do have consequences. we are in the majority. this is our offer, our vision. and what you do is you show the country what you believe in. the senate has not passed a budget in four years despite the fact that the law requires them to do so each and every year. because of the no budget, no pay act, the senate is finally doing a budget. i am please that patty murray is trying to pass a budget because we have not seen that attempt in a long time. if she can pass the budget, then we actually have a process out of the public for the nation to see that gets us going down the path of solving problems. this is one of the things the president and i talked about. let s revise the budget process so at the end of the day we can get a down payment on the problem. will the president take all of these solutions? probably not. what we are saying is, here is our offer, our vision. here is how we propose to balance the budget and grow the economy, repair the safety net, save medicare. we hope the senate actually follows suit and shows their vision because if they actually put their plan on the table, and we can start talking and find common ground. that is a constructive way forward. that is why we are doing this. you want to get down to two tax brackets, 10% and 25%. what do you say to the argument that in order to do that, you will have to go after middle- class tax breaks like mortgage interest, general donations, and healthcare exclusions? is is what the ways and means committee is going to do, set up working groups, doing hearing after hearing, going through the tax code to try to figure out a better tax system. our goal is to have a two bracket system that is progrowth. what that means is closing down loopholes, maintaining important ones that we are going to have to find out which that we are going to have hearings on to find out which are the most important ones. there are different ways of doing this. you can plug the polls you can actually plug loopholes. we think that is smarter because, don t forget, eight out of 10 businesses in america are not corporations. they file their taxes as people, as individuals. those tax rates are as high as 44.8% today. i represent wisconsin. among our greatest competitors are canadians. last year canada lower their tax rate on all of their businesses to 15%. the top tax rate on our small businesses, nine out of 10 businesses in wisconsin 44.8% effectively. how can you compete when your competitors are taxing their businesses at much lower tax rates than we are taxing hours? we think the current tax code is destroying jobs, job growth, opportunity. it is making america much less competitive. that is why our committee is proposing a framework to plug loopholes, balanced tax rates, so that people can get to work again. does this reflect a shifting approach? our defense spending level reflects with the president s joints chiefs the presidents joint chiefs said is necessary to fund the mission of the pentagon. our first priority of the federal government is national defense. we are funding at levels that are necessary to maintain national security for the country. last one. last week you are talking about how the fiscal cliff deal and other improvements at the baseline major job easier in getting steps to balance the budget. what are those steps? we extend the budget control act discretionary caps out the last two years. we also wanted to extend our reforms on the public workforce, on federal employees, to include all federal employees at the end of the budget window so that there pension contributions match those are commensurate with the private sector. we don t think federal employees should be able to have pension systems that are so far in excess of what the private sector counterparts get. doing those things, combined with the baseline, makes it easier for us to balance the budget. we have always reduced the balance budget in the past we have always produced the balanced budget in the past. but with this new baseline, that gets us to be able to balance the budget by the end of the decade, by the end of the budget window. the point i would make is, now that we know it is easier to balance the budget, we should not drop the ball on balancing the budget. the president and the democrats should join us it is an invitation to actually balance the budget because it helps our economy. it helps give us a healthy and progrowth economy. it helps make sure our kids inherit a debt-free nation. this is a goal that all of us should have, brother republican or democrat. thanks, everybody. appreciate it. house budget committee chair paul ryan releasing his fiscal year 2014 budget proposal, which seeks a balance budget in 10 years, partly by cutting 5.7 dollars trillion in spending and reforming the tax code. it also assumes repeal of the nation s health care program. we have a link to the proposal set up on our website, c- span.org. ever cuts are expected to discuss their proposal with the democrats are expected to discuss their proposal with the president this afternoon. if you missed any of this briefing, we will show it again later in our schedule. it will also be available on our website, c-span.org. a cloudy, rainy day in the nation s capital as we continue with live coverage, heading now to the senate judiciary committee, old in a hearing this morning looking into gun control legislation. this is the second part of this hearing. the first part happened last week. today s session got underway at 10:15 eastern. i hope we would have done that the other day, but i hope we could do that and complete it because once we come back from recess, we will be looking at immigration. thank you all very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] the committee is going into 4 going so we apologize t into it so quickly. we will have it later on our schedule. this morning, we spoke with a health care reporter who talked about where states stand in creating health care exchanges. this is from this morning s washington journal. host: we re back with a reporter to talk about the affordable care act. the affordable care act, we want states to is set up exchanges. what are they? guest: they are the vehicle that people are expected to get coverage. there is the medicaid expansion and the exchanges. the exchanges will be run in every state, and they are a web portal where consumers can go and get insurance at subsidized to the affordable and care act. it is for people who cannot afford insurance or get it through their employer. that would have access through the exchanges. host: what insurance companies will participate? guest: will vary from state by .tate p some consumers host: states will control what is set up? guest: effectively, yes, but states where resisted say they do not want any part, and what the affordable care act provides for is in states where they resist the government can build their own exchanges and operate them in the early going so they will be controlled with state input. host: 17 states and the steep well established exchanges, 17 states establishing seven states pursuing state-federal partnership exchanges. expat explained the difference. guest: the reason the obama administration wants states to build their combs they want states to have a stake in the outcome, and states know their insurance markets. they know who the players are. they have been regulating products in their states for years and and the administration would prefer their states to set up their own. the seven states, how will that work? that will depend. the states will control aspects on specific aspects. the administration will be in charge of building the infrastructure and networks required. host: how much will this cost? guest: it is unclear. there is money in the affordable care act, but the money is there and everybody is convinced that the obama administration will make sure there is money to set up exchanges. host: where are we in the process? as far as when exchanges have to be set up, there have been deadlines that have been put in place. guest: we are in the final sprint. in terms of the affordable care at a time, that is the blink of an eye. states need exchanges to be running, and states will start having coverage on january 1. there are questions whether they will be ready in time, whether they can get the networks in place, and states that have held out, saying where they want to go on exchanges, will have enough time. host: any chance they will get a delay or exception from the government? guest: there has not been an explicit the like, but they have been flexible, because they want the states to do this. there may be a minor delay or wait to get states going as quickly as possible. host: fully operational by january 1, 2014. guest: they hope millions of people will be enrolled and private plans will have been contract or placed on exchanges for people to enroll in. they will get a good sense of whether the affordable care act is working, whether the gains they hoped for are materializing. host: what are republicans saying is the outcome? guest: you are seeing critics saying this is an attempt for washington to control their health care markets, that should be the province of states. they are concerned they will end up driving caught up costs for people this is a back door for washington to control their long-held state markets. host: driving up costs how so? guest: says a washington-imposed plan. they pay the copiague and now cannot benefit mix, and washington does not know their markets like they do. they do not understand the benefits should be for their people, and it is a one size fits all exchange. host: we have heard from republicans who they will see premiums going up. is that related to the conversation about health care exchanges? guest: they are mostly worried about who will and roll, and if you get a lot of young people who say they do not need to enroll, i can accept a penalty for not getting coverage, or get around that requirement, then you will see costs change, less helping people less healthy people signing up for coverage. host: do we know the democrats demographics of people he will sign up for these exchanges? guest: i do not know, but they are hopeful that they will get the people to buy in and they have given states a lot of say in how to structure their plants in the hope they can tailor its to entice people. host: i our young people why are young people and important to making this work? guest: they do not require immediate medical attention, except for that when they have an emergency illness. the point is to get these people buy into its insurance now and pay premiums as a way to moderate costs for everyone else for the 01 per sicker population that needs regular care and treatment. host: of the affordable care act and exchanges, the 26 states, are most of those republican governors that have made that decision? guest: they are almost exclusively. you have some democratic states with governor s and republican legislatures. they had a republican legislature last term, but now they have the support of a democratic governor, but they passed a law to block a state- run exchange. host: are taking questions about the state health care exchange program. required under the affordable care act. patricia, you are first. caller: by senator paul ryan just did a budget, and he wants to cancel the affordable care act. also, my governor he does not want it. and i bet congress will not give the money for the affordable care act. the tea party is really ruining our country. host: paul ryan s budget. what does it say? guest: his budget assumes the repeal of the affordable care act which is a pipe dream, given the makeup of the country right now. i think it is aspirational, and a budget can be an aspirational document, so they would like that to be the case. republicans, especially with paul ryan still think the affordable care wacked could collapse under its weight. they think it s becoming so on popular there is no other choice could be a reality someday. host: wisconsin plants due to fall to a federal exchange program. guest: governor walter unveiled a plan. the other thing is medicaid expansion for low-income residents, and scott walker said i did not want to expand medicaid to the affordable care act. what he did say is i do want as many people as possible to enroll in the exchange and we can grow medicaid for state dollars for only the lowest threshold of poverty and get everyone else on the exchange. he is relying on the exchange for a coverage expansion. host: the house republican budget assumes they can repeal the affordable care act. host: senator ted cruz, when is he offering this amendment? guest: the money is there to build the exchanges. sequestration is only limiting the impact on the ability to build the exchanges, and coverage is unaffected right now by sequestration. what does not affect it on what is happening on the budget level is how the white house is reaching out and saying you should get coverage. they do not have the dollars to out reach. sequestration impacts that. people need to know that that choice if they expect to get choice. host: and the state of texas defaulting to an exchange. does cruz have support for it? guest: he has been increasing support for it. there have been reports that republicans understand the political reality. you re seeing this effort led by senator cruz. senator rubio profiled it. i think there is a reinvigorated effort. host: senator cruz is offering this amendment to what? the senate is taking it up today. bob from indiana is next. caller: i have a problem with this. expenses and expenditures. i go to several doctors. i m seeing my doctor every three months for medication refills. he wants me and every patient to come once a month to get medication refills. we are talking about cost. what are some people supposed to do? no one had the same answers. a lot of that money will come from my pocket and the government s pockets. where s the justification? guest: i cannot speak to monthly doctor visits. our co-pay free they hope prevented visits will reduce cost in the long run because people are getting things caught earlier and not waiting for the last second. the idea of regular doctor visits is what they want to encourage. host: george in massachusetts. caller: i am on medicare right now. this is make up the difference in the medicare that i pay? guest: there will not be much interaction between the exchanges and medicare. medicare is for 55 and up. 65 and up. the exchanges are people for working age and it is geared toward young people up till they are medicare eligible would be eligible for the exchange. host: are they paid for in some way under the affordable care act? guest: the states have been getting grants to set up exchanges. those set up costs are affected by sequestration to a degree. the white house wants to make this work to get these exchanges going. host: there was a new tax in the affordable care act. is the tax helping to pay for these exchanges? guest: the tax has not hit yet. a medical device tax took effect this year. the long term tax hall is further down the road to help pay for coverage expansion. host: dan in oklahoma. caller: i have a unique union contract. some goes to my wages and some goes to my pension and health care insurance and so much goes to an annuity. i have a good package. what we have here i work these repair jobs and i make $55,000 that year. this is just an example. my health care insurance is valued at $15,000. will i have to pay taxes on $65,000 at the end of the year? guest: i m not sure the affordable care act will have an impact. if you work for private company, that is tax deductible for your employer. what you paid toward your insurance is negotiated with the employer. i cannot speak to the particular changes with the affordable care act. host: gary on twitter. guest: and less debate about the real cost of the affordable care act. the deficit reducer over the long run. there will be coverage gains and reduced pressure on things like medicare and other elements that the law touches. republicans are saying this law is going to break the bank. host: joe in north dakota. caller: i have a few questions for you. you were talking about breaking the bank. we lost my father. my mother never took a dollar from the government. we stuck it out. i bought my first at 12. now i am 75 and on medicare. they say medicare is breaking the bank. you tell me why that should be breaking the bank if everybody has to pay that in or why we take these medicare patients. i understand there are people that cannot work. we are protecting the lazybones of this country. i would like you to explain that to me. guest: there is some debate including at the state level about who should be eligible for medicaid. should we make an effort to get people employed in medicaid that cannot afford health insurance on medicaid? the debate is happening around the country on that. there was a lengthy debate in florida yesterday. 70% are employed and medically eligible. a lot of people who do seek medicare cannot make ends meet and cannot afford health care. medicare costs have slowed. you cannot say it is breaking the bank as much as it could. it could be a major budget buster down the road. host: how does this debate over expanding medicaid on the state level fit into this conversation? guest: exchanges are for people who earn above the medicaid special. threshhold. under the affordable care act, states have a choice to expand their medicaid program for people making about $16,000. the goal of the affordable care act is to cover as many people as possible. that is the most vulnerable population that cannot afford health care. host: what did the supreme court decide on the medicaid expansion? guest:this is why the battles are playing out in the states. every state s biggest spending item is medicaid. i think the court said states can expand medicaid to washington cannot hold this hammer over them. this have given states a choice about expanding medicaid. host: there have been eight governors that have agreed to expand medicaid. you can see this list. why have they agreed to this? guest: there is a lot of reasons why. look at states like arizona and new jersey and you say the political makeup is in support of the affordable care act. it is a choice for states. there are billions of dollars on the table for states that except it. that accept it. to have billions of dollars that can bolster your economy and expand coverage to hundreds of thousands of the honorable residents, it is hard to turn down. host: next caller. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have paperwork on the health- care plan. you are not telling the people what it is going to cost them. $47.50 per child. 2015, $697 per adult. after that it jumps. $5,000 for a single person. there must be three other tiers to the coverage. you are not talking about the cost. this is exactly what you are doing to the american people. they re scared spitless. they know they cannot afford this. you people on not telling the people what is going to cost. host: what are you doing? are you organizing people against the affordable care act? guest: right now i m just doing it on my own. this is a dealer think i checked out this is not the only thing i check out. people are scared. i m afraid for the senators and representatives. people will find out they will not get the care they are promised. he did not mention the tax. there is taxed even on it band- aid. there was a device company shut down because of the tax coming down. you ll pass the tax on to the people. this was classified as a tax. president obama has totally lied. so have the republicans. host: what about the cost of participating? guest: there is no one having any illusion that the will not be premium increases. some short-term premium increases because of the law s impact all once. it is a different story for consumers. care could end up being more affordable and not less. is a fear out there. there is a discussion about what will happen. republicans are convinced that premiums will skyrocket. the law will become unworkable. host: when might we see those headlines? guest: the beginnings over the next year once people start paying those initial premiums in the affordable care act era. once the law officially takes effect, you will see the real impact. host: robert. caller: thank you for taking my call. i find the whole thing rather confusing. we understand basically four systems that we used currently medicare, medicaid, veterans , and private health insurance. given the current ways we received health care, how is it going to change? will the employers continue to pick that up or the percentage the private person pays be the same? with medicare, seniors often have to pay for a supplement program. will they continue to have to buy that program? we would like to know how that will change, it will at all. guest: one of the fears is that opponents will drop coverage and will force people into exchanges, which is private insurance or on to the private roles like medicare. that remains to be seen. as much of discussion about a government takeover, the law is predicated on growing private insurance. on medicare, it always remains to be seen. there are some changes to medicare in the law enabling singers to get preventive visits at no cost and to close the donut hole on prescription drugs. that is up in the air. host: rhonda in arizona. caller: i am currently unemployed and actively seeking work. how is the unemployed to pay for this insurance plan? i understand there is a fine if you are unable to take the insurance. who is going to pay the fine? there is word that if you are unable to pay for that fine that your spouse will have to pay. guest: i am not familiar with unemployed health-care programs. a lot of states have their own. she was in arizona. the affordable care act and the penalties are designed to be tailored to peoples income. the minimum penalty is $95 in the first year. some say that penalty is too low. beyond a certain threshold, there would not be a penalty at all. you can get a waiver. host: south carolina, a democratic, johnny. theer: i m a veteran of united states army. i work with the department of social services. this affordable health care act expands to those who are in poverty and to members who cannot afford health care. family members would be out of work because of health care. their health declined. these people are not able to go back to work. these people are able to go back to work. our governor is not extending that health care. it is an ugly situation. affordable health care is needed in this country. a lot of people need to understand the severity of what it would do to our country. host: do you have health insurance? caller: i do. host: through your job? caller: i do. guest: south carolina is one of the hell, no states. it will leave states on the hook, even though washington has said it will pay for the first three years and then pay 90% thereafter. there is a fear that washington will not live up to that commitment. we cannot afford to give you 90% of the cost. that expansion is there for people who are vulnerable and sick. host: we have this on twitter. guest: cost projections are falling. there have been different analyses for why that is. certain programs that are incentivizing providers to move away from this idea of fee for service. every time the doctor does a service or a test, the doctor gets paid. some say that is driving up costs. the notion of global payments or finding a way to say doctors should be paid for the health the outcomes of patients. host: this from vivian on twitter. guest: is not so much a cap. states are allowed most states have mechanisms to reject premiums that rise to what is considered an unjustifiable way. you re seeing some frustrations in states like california. raising rates by double-digit percentages. if there is very steep premium rates, we want to show that. a lot of states have mechanisms to reject those rates. host: stafford, texas. caller: i have been dealing with insurance from my daughter before she passed away. what is the big deal about obamacare? why hasn t the government rethinking the doctors and hospitals and the insurance and regulating them instead of forcing this on us? guest: i think the idea of the affordable care act is to make the system work better. you ll have disagreements about the right approach. there has been tons of that over the past two years. the idea of reaching to hospitals and doctors was a way to streamline the system. host: chris from nebraska. caller: hi. i was wondering in regards to the rebates. 80% were supposed to be used for health care. who is responsible for rebidding that back to me? is that the insurer? guest: it is the employer in general. a lot of people get coverage through their employer. it is they re responsible to pay 80% for health care. if they breach that, the employer would get that money. they would actually get the check. they could use that to reduce premiums going forward. it is a mixed bag. host: nancy is next from milwaukee. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. republicans are against it. this is one was left of the original intent of the bill. thedn t employers take burden to provide insurance, therefore there would be more apt to hire people? the capital left up to the states. left up to the states. we have an extreme ideologist for a governor and he is not going to do it. we will be punished. i would love to hear your answers. guest: it has fallen to the states on things like medicaid expansion at how to setup exchanges. states were given a buy-in to the law. employers and coverage i think it is a fear that employers will drop coverage. there are certain penalties in place if they do. but there is a fear out there. it could become an unaffordable problem. this is something republicans warned against. host: paul ryan writes in today s the wall street journal about the budget he plans to unveil this morning and his ideas for medicare and medicaid. we will be covering that news conference here on c-span at 10:30 this morning. good morning. caller: good morning. i cannot understand how anybody can rationalize asking the government to do anything more than it is doing. it cannot pay for what it is supposed to be doing now. it is saying it has to tax us smart to get more revenue by adding all these people to the rolls, of course it is going to cost more money. i feel the government simply will not do it. the states will be hung out to dry. host: we have this on twitter. guest: that is the point that proponents like to hammer home. this is what is projected to reduce deficits by putting downward pressure on programs like medicare and building in cost savings. some of these shift away from fee for service. this will start bending that cost curve. what people see what scares them off is the up front set up costs to build exchanges. there will be a lot of spending. the idea is it will put downward pressure on health care costs. host: john in georgia. caller: good morning. why is it so much talk about the entire health-care system has focused on insurance companies that provide these services without the recognition that anything in america that is a corporate-based is basically corrupt? all of these providers work within the stock market and are beholden to shareholders which is a capitalist-based product. it ll always be the people at the top that can benefit from this. you are always going to have that unpaid portion that is going to cut into your life services and the only way out of it from the standpoint of many developed nations germany, canada is through social care because there is no corruption on the capitalist side. guest: i think you re not alone on that. ofre s been a contingent support for a single payer system. there are concerns about the kind of system as well. dew point would be well taken in some circles your point would be well taken in some circles. the politics of a single pair payer have never been favorable. they may experiment with that in vermont. host: kyle cheney, thank you for your time. coming up we will bring you live coverage of u.s. house. members expected to take up a couple of bills dealing with financial institution privacy, and fled in short programs. the house gavels in in about 15 minutes. we are also planning live coverage of the british house of commons hearing on the situation in syria and north africa. we will join it live in progress after our coverage of the house at noon eastern today. later, the senate commerce, science, and transportation committee will hold a hearing on the fcc. that gets underway at 2:45 eastern. right now, a portion of that meeting today on gun control issues at the senate judiciary committee. here is a brief segment from that meeting. 374.e have before us i thank you for the opportunity for us to consider this legislation and other pieces. bill i have circulated resembles the fixed gun checks at i introduced last congress. i do not want to see too much, because the chairman has asked us to keep our statements short and because i am working on compromise legislation. the fixed gun checks contains my ideal approach to expanding background checks to all gun sales. a concept over 90% of americans support. it is not the only way to do it. i ve been talking and continue to talk with colleagues across the political spectrum and across the aisle about a compromise approach and i remain optimistic that we will be able to roll one out. they re not 100% there yet, so for purposes of this committee s markup, i have circulated my own bill. while we finalize a bipartisan compromise. i have an understatement about the bill i will put in the record with the chairman s% with numerous letters of support. ford now, i will highlight it does two critical things helps get states in to the database and requires background checks for all gun sales. the senator has a right to substitute. i would assume we accept substitute of course the bill would be open accept the substitute to his bill, and then it would be open to amendment, and before i yield to the senator, i know we have senator bill mattel, senator franken, senator schumer, senator hatch, senator flake, so that amendment is accepted, and senator grassley? i want to speak about my objections to senator schumer s bill, and at the end of my statement i have got questions i would like to ask senator schumer. i oppose the bill. the first point goes to process. when this first was listed on the agenda, it was a listing of findings, so it was not ready for markup that. the language is now changed as the substitute implies. i do not think it is still ready for markup. we are marking it up anyway. we were told that there was such a widespread support for universal background checks that a bipartisan bill would be on its way to passage. instead, three of the four senators involved in those discussions do not endorse the bill that is now before us. i sense from senator schumer that he is hoping that that can still happen. the bill we are on is similar to a bill that senator schumer introduced in the previous congress. let s start with the big picture problems that i find with it. first, as a witness stated at the hearings, there s no way to enforce a requirement of universal background checks without implementing a gun registration. i knowledge senator schumer says the federal law prevents such a registry. but federal law can be changed by federal law. this would be federal law requires the federal licensed dealer to keep a registration record of the transfer. mass shootings would continue to occurred despite the universal background checks. criminals will continue to steal guns and buy them illegally to circumvent the requirement. when that happens, we will be back again debating whether gun registration is needed, and when registration fails, the next move will be gun confiscation. it was concluded earlier this year with respect to universal background checks effectiveness depends on requiring gun registration. he noted the largest sources of how criminals obtained guns are through straw purchases and theft. he wrote straw purchases and theft would likely become larger if background checks at gun shows and private sellers were addressed. this bill would unnecessarily burden private sales. i think it has unintended consequences. law already requires background checks for sales by licensed dealers. we re told criminals did not get guns because of current background checks. we are told that when they seek to purchase guns, background checks prevent them. but that is not the case. obviously, criminals still get guns, they obtain them because they do not comply with background checks. supporters of this bill contend if we only make background checks universal, criminals will not get the guns. but criminals do not comply with existing background checks laws. why? why would anybody than think they would comply the criminal comply with a broader background check requirements? they will be trim it driven even morton straw driven even more to straw purchases and that s just as the official said. the effectiveness of this bill is therefore highly questionable. my next point, and this goes to the details of the bill, the mental health provision from last congress has been eliminated. that is a positive. we had professor david cobol who pointed out the flaws and that language, but many other flaws remain. the bill restricts the right of law-abiding citizens. the bill s family an exception applies to gifts only. it does not permit lending a gun to a family member. the bill does not permit a temporary transfer in the home appeared a gun owner cannot bring a new gun to a friend s house, let him handle it. if a gun owner and a friend returned from a shooting range, then stop at the french s house and the friend cannot handle the owners begun to show him how better to clean it, and an owner can transfer his gun to a friend at a licensed shooting range or while hunting, but as the the target shooting in the national forest or a friend s farm, the owner cannot let a friend use his gun. now, those are some of the problems. on top of that, gun safety instruction will be rendered impossible in many situations by this legislation. this trading could occur at a target range, but many of these classes take place at schools, offices, sporting goods stores, and other locations, and then after those classes, only at the end does a class into a shooting range for live fire in charge appeared gun safety instructors could not offer the class and component of the course anywhere accept a shooting range or at the instructor s home. the most troublesome individual provisions of the bill is the mw requirement that a person whose gun is lost or stolen has to report it within 24 hours to local police and the u.s. attorney general. the problem with this goes way beyond the short period of time that is allowed to report. for one thing, it would be a burden that applies only to lawful gun owners and not to the criminal. the law provides a chubby unlawful for any person who lawfully possesses, or owns a firearm to fail to report the theft or loss. it is a felony if a lawful gun owner fails to do so, but there is no person no requirement if a person who unlawfully and owns a gun, fails to report a loss. citizen whoding sinc forgets to commit a felony. this poses a major threat to freedom because in america, we prohibit criminal actions, although that limits freedom. it does so much less than a law that criminalizes non action. in america, it is very rare to criminalize inaction, only a few classes of people have the obligation to act. police officers, doctors, but ordinary citizens do not have that requirement. one very limited exception is filing a tax return, and it took a constitutional amendment to give the government the power to mandate that. requiring people to report lost or stolen guns is a good idea. many or not that most gun owners do so pared making it a federal offense not to take affirmative action is a legitimate question. i wonder what constitutional authority that congress has to make people take an action such as this or face a criminal penalty. maybe some of my colleagues would engage senator schumer on that point they finally, i note the views of mr. mark again. he is the father of a young son who was murdered in newtown. says he is not willing to entertain this conversation until congress implements solutions to improve the nich database, until you fix the database, and what feeds it, you will not solve anything. he says that these checks are not universal and never will be. that word is intended to give people a sense that they have solved the entire problem. obviously, i agree with the letter writer. we heard testimony that hundreds of thousands of mental health records are of prohibited persons in a single state have not been provided to the nics. should make sure existing laws are effective and a fourth before we start enacting new ones. for these reasons, i oppose this legislation. now, as i said to senator schumer, i have three or four questions i would like to ask him. i think they take short interest, so i am not doing this to extend it out, but to get clarification. just for a moment. i have to step out just for a moment. i will give the gavel to senator schumer, but i know you two can go back and forth. but it will take a minute. what if a person thinks they may have displaced their gun? does a 24-hour period apply? i m sorry, could you repeat that? does the 24-yard period apply? [indiscernible] are required to report appeared these are the kinds of provisions, the family exception. i put in the ideal bill the others wanted. we are willing to negotiate and compromise on those, as i am doing with my colleagues. and so i am certain that even under this proposal, if it is to a 24-hour period, if you know it is lost, you would have to report it. i said originally i did not think the bill was ready. another question, how does law enforcement benefit from reporting that a gun is lost or stolen without specific identifying information? you can see this hearing in its entirety. is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker s rooms, washington, d.c. march 12, 2013. i hereby appoint the honorable jackie velour i ask to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant of the order of the house of january 3, 2013, the chair will now recognize members from lists smithed by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and minority whip limited to five minutes each, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 1:50 p.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, for five minutes. mr. defazio: mr. speaker, today i rise as a member of the safe climate caucus to talk about an important new report on climate change. of late the discussion over global warming has focused on temperatures the last 118 years when standardized record keeping began, primarily the best and most comprehensive research on temperatures has gone back overwhelm as far as 2000 years. climate change complain these studies have been shortsighted. they haven t taken into account warming going on today could have happened naturally thousands of years ago. they are a result of natural fluctuations, they say. there is some scientific basis for that claim. variations on how the earth is tilted in its orbit around the sun makes a pattern of warming and cooling phasing over thousands of years. in some cases the earth heats up. others it cools down. last week scientists from oregon state university, including two constituents of mine, sean and alan, joined with their colleagues from harvard university and published a study in the journal science peer review that provides new context on today s climate and rising temperatures. instead of looking at temperatures from last 118 years or even 1,000 years, they exam temperatures going back a little further, 11,300 years. the entire period. the findings are sobering. a wake-up call and should be a wake-up call to the members of this institution. we already knew the earth is warmer than it was over much of the last 2,000 years. that s been confirmed by a mountain of scientific evidence. but thanks to the work of of the colleagues, we now know it s warmer on earth than it was in the past 11,300 years. we have experienced almost the same range of temperature change over the last 100 years coinciding with the invention, widespread use of engines and turbines powered by fossil fuels as the previous 11,000 years of earth history. i want to repeat that for emphasis. rising temperatures over last century have been greater than the temperature increases over the previous 100 centuries combined. it shows that human activity reversed the cooling pattern of 5,000 years of 1.3 degrees fahrenheit in 100 years. it s extraordinary. their projections to the future are also very sobering. the climate deniers are running out of excuses. they said 118 years. not enough. 2,000 years. not enough. how about 11,300 years of certified research? they say it s biased by region. this was done in 73 sites around the entire planet. we have heard about solar insulation. well, according to this claim we should now be at the bottom of the long-term cooling trend. whoops, that s not happening. that shows that the solar insulation theory doesn t hold up, either. in short, this confirms what those of us who believe in science already know, man-made climate change is real, it s regressing quickly, we must take action. that s not happening in the house of representatives. during the last congress house republicans voted 53 times to block action on climate change. time and time again they voted to know nothing and do nothing. they are argue that science isn t settled. but they vote to cut funding for climate science. here s a few of my favorite quotes from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. human induced climate change is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetuated out of the scientific community. media conspiracy to promote climate change. another one, shady scientists. my favorite, better known, however, is global warming movement s commitment to restrict the use of private automobiles. the rich will still have their limos and private jets. the rest of us will not be able to travel by plane and we ll be stuck sitting at home or sitting next to a gang member on public transportation. yes, that was actually said on the floor of the house of representatives. mr. speaker, it s time to stop the nonsense and the blather and get serious about climate change. the evidence is in. e only question is whether the united states house of representatives will listen and act. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, for five minutes. mr. poe: madam speaker, linda roberts from kingwood, texas, is one of my constituents. she received the american community survey and filled out only the information required by the census bureau and mailed it back to the census bureau. let me make this year. the census every year counts the american public, the population, with the census forms. but the census bureau also sends out a longer, larger, more intensive document called the american community survey to many americans throughout the 10 years of the census. any way, linda received this long form. the american community survey. and she did not fill out the survey. so she later began receiving weekly calls from the census bureau telling her complete the survey. when she refused to complete the survey, the calls increased every day. multiple times day. this is a single mother working, trying to support her family, and she s being harassed by the federal government. timely, a census bureau employee showed up at her house ringing the door bell. peeking through the windows to see if she was inside. trying to get her to come to the door to fill out this long survey by the census bureau. many occasions the harassment didn t stop. on many occasions she would come home from work and there would be a car from the federal government parked out there in front of her house trying to catch her as she s going into her home to get her to fill out the american community survey. these are people from the federal government. mrs. roberts explained she not only felt uncomfortable providing the detailed informing to the federal government, but she was afraid. no kidding. now where, madam speaker, in the constitution does it give the federal government the authority to do this? the constitution does not authorize peeking tomcrats to come from the federal government to snoop around our homes and get information from citizens. here s what she said. please do something about getting the census bureau to stop the harassing phone calls concerning the american community survey. i have also received calls from other people, george says he refused to fill out the survey. so he started getting phone calls from all over the country. from different area codes. he disregarded them as identity theft phishing zams so she didn t answer any of those calls. madam speaker, george and linda are two of the many people who contacted my office about the intrusive american community survey from the federal government demanding people fill this out. once again this is not the census year, this is the census bureau giving another questionnaire to the american public and expecting them by law to fill this out. the questions are about 48 questions long. here are some of the questions. do you have a flush toilet in your house? what time do you go to work in the morning? what time do you come home in the afternoon? how much money do you make? how much money does your spouse make? do you have a second mortgage on another home? where is that home? here s a good one, i quote, because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition does someone in the household have serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions? isn t that lovely? the survey wants us to comment on the mental health of people that live in the house. i m glad my wife didn t get this survey and fill it out talking about me. madam speaker, the government has no business asking these personal questions. it infringes on the right of the privacy of the american public. and people are upset about this because they are forced to provide this to information to uncle sam or pay a sanction of a $5,000 fine. government intimidation at its worse. yes, there may be some benefit. the government says we use this information so we can help businesses plan whether to put a store on this corner or that corner. that s fine. but the constitution doesn t authorize this in my opinion. so if the businesses want that information, let them pay for it. go to a polling system. and so i think what we should do, madam speaker, is make this form voluntary, people want to fill it out and get a better information, great, they shouldn t be required to. i have introduced legislation, rand paul in the senate has introduced legislation to make the american community survey voluntary. people shouldn t be required to fill it out. what s next? the government will start asking us how many guns we got in our home? what kind of cars we drive? whether they are green cars or whether we are driving pickup trucks? where is it going to stop? the american community survey should be voluntary. americans should not be required to fill it out. and we need to change the law to make it voluntary for the american public. that s just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, the gentlelady from north carolina, recognizes ms. foxx for five minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. congratulations are due to the entire syntoc corporation branch in statesville, north carolina, and each of the team members who worked together to earn osha s carolina star distinction for their workplace. this past week i was honored to join the employees and management and take part in the celebration of their shared achievement. the environment there was so impressive and collegial, i wanted to bring their story of success to washington. the carolina star program considers more than just exemplary safety and health standards when it designates award winners. companies are expected to show how they have built culture where employees and management share the duties of keeping a safe workplace. every employee in statesville akes ownership of this task. defusing hazards together and teaching others to put safety first together. they say an atmosphere of open dialogue and shared responsibility among all mployees that sets it apart. where clb budget reconciliation, cooperation, and inclusion were weighed by the carolina star program, the statesville branch excelled. those are qualities that ache that make for more than a safe workplace. they make for a good workplace. and in their case a workplace that not only thrives but enables other businesses to thrive by providing key support services. again, congratulations and their entire team ton this on this achievement. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, for five minutes. mr. jones: madam speaker, thank you very much. i have come to the floor quite often to remind the congress that we are still at war. in fact yesterday we had seven americans killed in afghanistan. this year alone we have had three situations where the afghans that we were training turned their weapons on the americans who were trying to help them and kill them. this policy in afghanistan is a total disaster. it is a failed policy and we are not going to change one thing in afghanistan. in fact, madam speaker, the past week the new secretary of defense, chuck hagel, who is freand of mine, i have great respect for him, was in afghanistan and mr. karzai accused mr. hagel and the american people of negotiating with the taliban. the taliban are our enemy and enemy of karzai. this just continues to show that this gentleman that leads afghanistan is quite frankly, he s corrupt, he s confused, and he s unpredictable. but what amazes me is that this congress continues to spend $6 billion to $8 billion a month in afghanistan. and we have this person that is leading their country that from one day to the next he either likes the american people or he dislikes the american people. in fact, in the december of this year, karzai was quoted in the washington post as saying that he now has three three main enemies, taliban, the united states, and international community. if he had to choose sides today, he would choose the taliban. now he s accusing america of cutting deals with the taliban. and we had again seven americans killed yesterday. it s time for this congress to wake up and stop spending money in afghanistan. history has shown we will never change afghanistan no matter what we do. they don t want to be us to begin with. why will we cut programs in america for children and american citizens to make sure that karzai will get his money? in fact, the inspector general for the reconstruction to afghanistan, his name is john, he testified recently that we re averaging spending $235 million a day, $235 million a day in afghanistan and half the projects that we are spending money on are blown up within a few weeks after they re completed, by the taliban. i do not understand my own party, to say the least. i don t understand the congress. why do we want to keep spending money we don t have and deny the american people a fix for this economy and this country? madam speaker, i m pleased to say that i have introduced, along with my democratic friend, rosa delauro, h.r. 125, the congressional oversight of afghanistan agreement of 2013. all we re trying to do is to get a debate on the floor to say why would we agree to stay in afghanistan after 2014 to 2024. this agreement signed by this administration has obligated america to be there 10 more years after 2014. how many more young americans, how many americans will have to die? how much money will the american taxpayer have to spending in afghanistan? ms. delauro and myself would like to have a debate on the floor of the house, if for no other reason, if we can t change the agreement that the president has signed, let the american people know that we want a debate, not stay there 10 more years and see our young americans die for a corrupt leader than spending money for the american people. it makes absolutely no sense. in closing, madam speaker, this is just another example of war when these marines are carrying a flag-draped coffin, how many more families have to cry for a failed policy, a policy we will not change afghanistan no matter what we do. in closing, madam speaker, i ask god to please bless our men and women in uniform, to please bless the men and women in uniform. i ask god in his loving arms to hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in afghanistan and iraq, and i ask god to please continue to bless america. madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until 2:00 p.m. the liaison committee is made up of the 33 chairs of the house of commons select committees. and their questions to the prime minister are not provided in advance. the prime minister s twice a year apeerps before the liaison committee is a tradition that began with prime minister tony blair. this was expected to start at noon eastern. they are running about a half-hour behind because of votes in the house of commons. in about 10 minutes or so we ll join them live here on c-span. about 12:30 eastern. today house budget committee chair paul ryan released his budget proposal. it seeks repeal of the nation s health care law. shortly after presenting the plan to the media, senate majority leader harry reid and minority leader mitch mcconnell reacted. earlier this year, top republicans promised a kinder, gentler republican party. the republican party that cared about every american achieving their dreams. that was a quote. republican bantied about the words like fairness and community. they made overtures toward women and hispanics. they promised cooperation and end to brinksmanship. house majority leader cantor spoke of, quote, an agenda based on a shared vision of creating the conditions for health, happiness, and prosperity for more americans and their families. close quote. rebranding we thought was under way. then a few weeks passed and the republicans on fairness and equity made a direct u-turn back to where they started. today the house budget committee chairman, paul ryan, will unveil an extreme budget that s anything but balanced. his budget reflects the same skewed priorities the republican party has championed for years. the same cued parties americans rejected in november. the ryan republican budget will call for more tax breaks for the wealthy and end to medicare as we know it, and draconian cuts to education and other programs that help america s economy grow and prosper. we have heard many times and i ll repeat it, yogi berra famously said it s deja vu all over again. it really is, mr. speaker. we have seen this before. deja vu all over again. the ryan budget will shower more tax breaks on millionaires and continue to tilt the playing field to the advantage of big corporate interests and raise taxes for middle class. now, i know that congressman ryan is held out to be this guru who understands things so well. what he understands is gimmickry. that s what he s done so well. he s pulled the wool over the eyes of those people in the house and they continue following him. but, mr. president, his budget is anything but balanced, anything but fair, and members of the house should look at what they are being led into or out of. this plan just like last year refused to close a single tax loophole in order to reduce the deficit. yet it guts investments in education, health care, public safety, scientific research, job creating clean energy technology. the ryan budget would end medicare guarantee an force seniors into a voucher program. it would ax preventive health care such as cancer screenings and charge seniors more for prescriptions. and would further reduce the funding for food inspectors, police, and first responders generally. and is protecting wealthy and special interest isn t bad enough, the republican budget also devastates the economy, costing jobs and slowing growth. not only this wrong approach, it s the same old approach. and to make matters worse, the paul ryan budget number three has done it two other times, is the same fuzzy math, gimmickry as his previous two budgets. it relies on an accounting that s creative at best and fraudulent at worse to inflate the claims of deficit reduction. we believe it s critical we stabilize the deficit, but it will take more than accounting gimmicks to achieve real deficit reduction. at a time when corporations are making record profits, stock market, and the wealthy americans income continues to rise, the deficit reduction shouldn t be at the expense of the middle class families, senior citizens, and the poor. americans have demanded a fair approach to deficit reduction, alt americans, democrats, independents, and republicans. they want a fair approach to deficit reduction that makes sensible cuts, ask the wealthiest to share the burden, balance. we have been listening, mr. president, that s why this week budget committee chair, patty murray, will introduce a budget with both balanced priorities. her plan, democratic plan, will cut wasteful spending and reduce the deficit and invests in what the economy needs to grow really hard, to continue to build, to grow, and create a strong middle class. congressman ryan and his republican colleagues in congress have taken a different approach. an approach that makes it plain they missed the message in the november elections. their budget will once again put money into special interest they had at middle class families. no amount of rebranding will hide that, mr. president. as we know president obama missed this year s legal deadline to submit a budget to congress. just like he has nearly every year of his presidency. but this year it s even worse. we now know he doesn t even plan to submit a budget until after the house and senate have already acted to pass one. this never happened in more than 90 years that have gone by since the modern budgeting process was established in the 1920 s. somehow presidents managed to submit budgets on time in the middle of world war ii, during the great depression, but somehow not today. there is simply no excuse. rather than helping lead congress toward a reasonable outcome, it appears the president is happy to drop a bomb on the congressional budget process instead by releasing his budget plan, after, after the house and senate have already acted. now, presumably this is so he can campaign against republicans if the process fails as he no doubt hopes. let s hope he doesn t trot out that tired political playbook again. the president should send over his budget now. not next week, or next month, but today. so both sides can consider it at a time when it might be helpful rather than destructive to the entire process. and speaking of serious delays, for four years my constituents in kentucky and americans across the country have been asking senate democrats a simple question, where s the budget? where s the budget? most families put one together. they want to know what democrats who run the senate have planned. but for four years senate democrats have ignored these concerns. year after year they have neglected one of the most important legislative responsibilities, but evidently that s about to change. senate democrats are now pledging to finally, finally produce a budget. it will be interesting to see what they put forward. i hope senate democrats take this exercise seriously and propose real spending reforms that can put our country on a stronger, more sustainable fiscal path. reforms that can control spending and lead to robust private sector growth and job creation. we ll find out soon. what about republicans? well, republicans lead the house and they produce budgets every year right on schedule, budgets that would finally put our country on a path to growth and job creation and would put our creeky entitlement programs on a sound fiscal footing so they are around when people need them. today house be republicans will unveil this year s budget blueprint. if the past is any ipped case, the reforms it contains would jump-start our economy, help more americans join the middle class, and begin to tackle the debt that threatens all of our futures. because republicans understand we need to grow the economy not grow the government. what s more, it would get us back to a balanced budget within just a few short years. call me a skeptic, but there is little chance the budget my senate democratic friends put forward will balance today, 10 years from today, or ever. i doubt it will contain much in the way of spending reform, either. we ll probably just get more of what we have come to expect from them the past few years, lots of budget gimmickry, lots of wasteful spending, and even more tax hikes. that type of budget won t grow the economy nor will it shrink the debt. here s the thing. the budgeting process is a great way for both parties to outline their priorities for the country. and that s something senate democrats have refused to do until now. so if they want to put forward a budget that allows medicare to go bankrupt, that hikes up taxes on families and small businesses that can least afford them, and that proposes a future of massive deficits without end, if that s really how they want to define themselves for the american people, then let the battle of ideas begin. but we need to see their budget first, so it s time to end the years of delays and put those ideas out there on the table and it s well past time for the president to do the same. not after congress acts, but before. republicans have managed to play by the rules every year and produce serious budgets for our country. i hope democrats are finally ready to get to work to do the same. a reaction from senate leaders earlier today to the republicans new house budget proposal. you can read that plan on our website at c-span.org. live now to london for coverage of the british house of commons liaison committee. as prime minister david cameron updates on u.k. foreign policy and a number of other issues. this began about five minutes ago. issue for the retailers to explain to their customers what was happening with their product, because it was much more a labeling issue more than a food safety issue. there may have been safety issues, but it was much more food labeling. i think they have really come into their own. i think they have been very frank and given a lot of information to their customers. two things i want to ask you. to see the local authorities are entirely refunded for the tests they have been asked to do by the f.s.a. do you have any plans yourself to look at the role and responsibilities of the f.s.a. going forward? on the first point i m not fully aware of the funding arrangements there. all i know is that the level of testing, even there there have been difficult spending decisions, the level of testing hasn t declined. in terms of reimbursement i have to look at that and write to you. in terms of the role of the f.s.a. i m sure there will be a moment for a proper lessons learned exercise. the f.s.a. was only recently set up. i don t want to throw the cards in the air and hope some massive great i m sure as this we get on top of this problem, i m sure there will be a moment when the secretary of state will look to consult with people in the industry and more widely perhaps. what are the lessons we can learn earn what can we put in place snim sure your committee can contribute to that. you mentioned the testing, prime minister. the secretary of state told me specifically there were 5,430 tests carried out, but he wouldn t tell me didn t tell me whether that s a sufficient number. who told you that sufficient tests have been carried out? did they what sort of scientific qualificationthat person have? when i was guided through this i was obviously having quite regular conversations with the secretary of state. i think the view was taken we were carrying out many more tests than other european countries. the number of the tests was appropriate. when you look at the relatively small number of horse food contaminations, i think it s difficult to tell, i was going i asked a lot of questions of the secretary of state with my experts advising me as it were. did i ask an independent scientist we ll come to the independent scientist in a moment. when you are testing that kind of volume in an emergency situation, regaling together as one had to facilities across the country, isn t there a risk of inconsistencies of standards and expert tees? how do you really know pecser tease? how do you really know the testing done was adequate? no one was prepared for this. i think the people who were most keen to get the tests done and make sure they were done properly are the retailers who whose whole future proper testing and ackcra labeling defends. i think if you look at, as i say, they were a bit slow to start with, but if you look at what s happened now in terms of the tests they are carrying out, in terms of the changes, practice they are looking at, changes of sourcing, massive great double page advertisements in the papers. the retailers have to get on top of this and use scientific opinion to help them make sure they do. i can give you what we do in the u.k., bear in mind we only have a very small number of horse appetoires anyway. i think it compares quite favorably. i want to move on how you interface with your scientific advisors to ensure that you can get independent voices on the science departments. obviously there are circumstances when ministers will setaside the scientific advice for policy reasons that override the advice they have received. don t you think it would be a good idea if that were the case that ministers ought to be required to spell out why they have setaside the advice? i can t think of an occasion i can t think of an occasion where scientific advice has been received minister you must do x and the minister has done y. the scientific advisor is normally about what is the likelihood of success, probabilities, what s the information you need to do? further research? i think the important thing is that scientific research is scientific advice is properly give, properly received, properly looked at, and then ministers make decisions and then parliament, committees, including your committee, can ask we want to be sure that scientific advice is genuinely independent and robust. i m not trying to create an environment where the scientific advisors feel free to give that advice. i think they really do. if their advice were rejected for other policy reasons, don t you think it s reasonable to expect the minister responsible to spell out why these re he s rejecting that advice? if, as you say, there was a clear piece of advice to do x and the minister wanted to do y, yes, i think the minister would have to explain, going to be questioned in parliament, have to explain why he or she had taken that decision. from my experience that s not quite the way it works. you get scientific advice about an issue and it s something you take into account. the advice isn t often often isn t taking this path or that path. it s trying to explain the context. take fukushima for instance where the scientific advice was really important. we held cobra meetings to listen to the advice of the ambassador, the chief scientists about what we should do in relation to fukushima. there wasn t a moment where we disregarded scientific advice, but you would take into account that advice in part of your decisionmaking. just on that let me it s appropriate the last fortnight we ought to put on record how well it did during that period. and helped people understand the crisis that we are facing. it s that kind of situation where i think it s absolutely critical that governments accept that scientists like chief scientists in this case can genuinely feel free to give independent i think they totally feel like that. they do not hold back in giving their opinions. they come they get asked a lot of questions about their opinions in those meetings so we really drill down into what they are telling us. i don t think this is a problem. when you said a moment ago in relation to the meat contamination, you asked questions assisted by your advisors. who were you talking about? scientists or specialists? as opposed to those in the department? more number 10 staff. when this issue case took light, i was using my private secretary who follows this the private secretary who follows this department. but also using policy unit people, implementation unit people, whoever i thought would have interesting views and would think of the right the job is to probe and ask the right questions. what are the retailers doing? what is the chance of this spreading internationally? it s making sure as prime minister that you feel that the department is on top of it gripping it properly. i think they did a good job. the reason i ask that question in this part of the session we are trying to get how you and number 10 handle difficult situations and difficult issues that arise. i m going to ask to move on to a different topic with the same intent. not quite different as much as going to talk about the cost of food is going up faster in places and particularly the cost of energy is also rising faster than other places. but the higher portion of their income are paying more on these commodities, yet at the same time we are facing cuts in their benefits as a result of welfare reform. their overall income. what did number 10 do to anticipate this double whammy, if you like, and going to fall on the most vulnerable in society? have you done anything to mitigate the effects of the rising prices on the incut in income? the first thing on the energy prices, number 10 has played a role in that in pushing very hard what now going to be put into law the idea that energy providers must put customers i think there is a frustration among consumers, a baffling array of tariffs, you know you are allowed to choose and change suppliers, but you can never be certain you get the lowest tariff. that change of law is significant. although number 10 is very involved in that. it was an interesting moment when you announced it. looking around i m not sure everyone anticipated your announcement of it. the point i would make, it s going to be passed into law in the house of commons. and it will be scrutinized and that will be that. there is a technique to get the thing driven through the system. you might say that. none the less, a nonenergy policy more generally, there is the has been a billing and robust debate about how you get the balance right between sourcing energy, making sure you have security of supply, incentivizing energy producers come forward, not put too much pressure on people s bills. that s been a debate held in the coalition. that s now been answered. we set out the energy strategics on what the system is and i think it s a fair balance between security of supply and also making sure we keep energy prices down. but for people who whose income has been cut at the same time. no matter how low theiring in bills are, or food bills, they no longer have the same amount of money in disposable income in order to afford the basics. the difficult decisions about welfare have been taken by and large in the meetings with the deputy prime minister, prime minister chancellor, chief secretary, and many occasions joined by the welfare secretary when we are using welfare issues. we have had to make very difficult decisions, but when you re fighting a budget deficit that is one of the biggest anywhere in europe, and when welfare is one in every three pounds the government spends, i don t think it s possible to deal with the crisis in public spending and deficit without addressing welfare. so for instance the decision we made about the 1% increase in the working age welfare, that s the forum in which that was taken. the department of worker pensions were involved in that decision. all their experts were able to brief us about that matter. one point i make which i think is important because prices have been going up faster than wages over the last few years, people on welfare have seen their incomes go up faster than people who work. i know they are going up because of inflation, for instance, if you take an unemployed person on job seekers allowance, they are going to be getting 325 pounds more a year this year than they were in 2010. now, there are quite a lot of people in work who haven t had a 300 pound pay raise. that doesn t take into account the effects of your other welfare reforms which have actually cut the income. things such as the cut on housing benefit. bedroom tax. le soon people are going to have to find 20%, possibly more of a tax they didn t have to find. the disposable income despite the 1% increase is much less. have we had to take difficult decisions over welfare, yes. have we taken decisions on welfare that have affect people across the income spectrum? yes, we have. we also took away child benefit with families someone earning over 60,000 pounds. the interesting thing about all these changes, this is not to be political, either that change affect people earlier at 60,000 pounds a year, we haven t had all parties aboard for even that change. so you can either take a view we wouldn t make any changes to welfare at all even though we have a budget deficit which is now the biggest in europe, that is a point of view. if you want to take that point of view and have to find public spending deductions in health, education, and elsewhere, my argument is if welfare is one in three pounds that the government spends, it s impossible to deal with the problems of excessive public spending and excessive deficit without looking at welfare. but 50% will be the pension. 70% was the people above but they are not the ones facing the cuts. my view, this is the political choice, my view is people who have worked hard all their lives, retired, they deserve dignity in old age. i made a very clear promise at the election people would continue to receive the old age pension properly rated and they would continue to get the free television license, free bus pass, winter fuel payments. i have kept all those promises. i m proud of that. and actually when you examine where welfare s increased very rapidly and where we need to give it more tension, i would actually argue that working age welfare, in 2010, members of parliament were able to get working tax credits. i don t think that is appropriate and that s why we changed that. i think it is twheafl requires the attention. it has to be done properly but that s the choice. if you want to argue would it be better to take the money off pensioners, go ahead. we need to move along. having established very much the issues you took a close personal interest these have very big decisions, welfare decisions, big budget decisions and you expect the prime minister to be involved. different subject. cancellation of the competition for the inner city west coast franchise has cost the public at least 50 million pounds up to now. it s caused great disquiet within the whole of the road industry and led to major review. with something so important, such major implications that you have got a grip on this one? clearly something went very wrong at the department of transport and i m personally very frustrated about the way in which this happened because and i think you know this, as this process was going on, i was getting letters from participants and i was concerned about what i was reading and so i asked the cabinet secretary to examine whether this was being done properly. he in turn asked the department of transport for assurances about the process and received assure sureances and it turns out the assurances he got were wrong anti-assurances he gave me were wrong. i m not happen with what happened. this is not acceptable. and that is why we had to stop the franchise. that is why we have had these two reviews. i think they did a good job and we have to learn a lesson from that. this was a major error. major problems. what lessons have you learned from this? as far as number 10 is concerned, as i say i did ask the cabinet secretary to investigate and make absolutely sure this was being done fairly and properly. it wasn t productive. and the cabinet secretary was very apologetic about that and he was angry about the fact he was let down by the department of transport and the upshot is the number of people the department of transport have been investigated and one of the key people has left the department as it s been restructured. action has been taken, but there are lessons that need to be learned and i want to make sure that we learn them across government about all of these processes that involve complicated data sets and that s why it was way beyond complicated data sets. that was part of it. what we have here was a secretary of state, the previous secretary of state, in a situation where administrative costs have been cut by over a third and the whole cut for the whole parliament have been taken in one go by decision of the then secretary of state. the department was not organized properly. the event secretary stated both on the completely new process and new type of franchise, very riskly, ill prepared. what lesson do you learn from that in relation to ministerial responsibilities? i think one of the you can obviously make the argument that if you cut a department it then becomes completely capable of doing anything. i don t accept that. this was catastrophic. this was the basis of the problems. there were other issues, too. but do you not take any lesson from that situation? let me make two points. one is some of the errors as i understand it that were made were simple computinger-e roars. second puting errors. second point, where there are problems you need departments to surface them early. the people involved in this knew there were problems and didn t surface them. that is about competence and effective management and proper reporting systems. i think there are all sorts of lessons to learn. i think the inquiries will help to make sure they are learned. i think there are lessons to learn about how you conduct complex financial arrangements like franchises and make sure that they are properly done. i hope lessons will be learned there, too. that s why the treasury secretary has been involved in that. and also speaking because we are here to talk about what number 10 s role is, if the prime minister asked the cabinetry about a process, i think in the future it s important to make sure when you go to a department and ask for those things, a better piece of work adown is done to make sure you get to the bottom of it. obviously that didn t happen. in june, 2010, the department announced that siemans was to be the preferred. that was a controversial decision at the time. we now in march, 2013, and that deal has not been concluded. has number 10 been making inquiries? has the has number 10 been making inquiries? i have been following this very closely. it s a very important contract. we want to make sure that it is carried out properly. of course, yes. in the regular discussions my officials have and i have with the department of transport. tend to make it terribly important. crossroad is very important. a number of the road schemes are very important. i want number 10 s role here is to progress and make sure things are happening that hasn t happened, has it? we were told in 2010 that this contract was going to be concluded shortly. those were the words used. march 2013, have you been asking? yes, as i said. the things that are great concern to me are the biggest contracts, the biggest things that will make a difference to our economic geography and economy and oversee the, the timsley contract. how we make sure we learn the lesson of that competitive tender, and i want to make sure we continue with good grade manufacturing in darby, these are the questions we raised. are you satisfied that the delay is a justified one? the project has still not been concluded despite its importance. i want us to expedite things. prime minister, you remember we discussed the question of ministerial accountability in march last year. you suggested there need to to be no change this is accountability of civil service. i would submit did i say that? i thought i shared you shared a bit of ankle perhaps, i felt it was no departure from the principal set out in the armstrong memorandum which i m sure you ll be familiar. when a civil servant gives evidence to a select committee he or she does so as the representative of the minister in charge of the department and subject to the minister s instructions and is accountable to the minister for the evidence which he or she gives. the ultimate responsibility lies with ministers and not with civil servants to decide what information should be made available and how and when it should be released. this is seems a bit dated in today s modern world of transparency and accountability and openness, wouldn t you agree? i would agree. i don t think i gave as strict an answer as you said. go back and check. is this still in force? i checked this afternoon. this is still the guidance that the civil servants are required to comply with. it says that civil servants should conduct themselves in such a way to deserve and retain the competence of ministers. all the emphasis is on that. that the duty of the individual civil servant is first and foremost the minister of the crown who is in charge of the department in which he or she of course there is an exception in the case of the county officers. that rather makes the case that in a matter such as the west coast main line fiasco, there should perhaps be more openness and accountability directly from civil servants to select committees. i would agree with that. i think we need to think carefully about where you try to draw some new lines. if, for instance, we go back to the chief scientist if you summon the chief scientist to a committee and ask them questions, you would expect them to answer those questions accurately and if necessary relatively independently. i don t take i m making a slightly broader point here. there is a tendency you referred to the officials. when it came to france s report we are not allowed to have scapegoats. in the case of the west coast main line some people would feel that relatively junior officials have been made the scapegoats. when we know that there was loss of key skills from the department. the responsibility was possibly held to a junior level. there was a lack of gotscheance because the franchise had been split. there was a restriction on outside advice. and as you said the can be net looked looked at this and cabinet secretary even looked at this. it doesn t seem to be recognized in the accountability of either the public or parliament. do you understand why people might feel concerned like that? i do. i think that in the case of the west coast main line, i think it is pretty clear that there was a failure within the department and that failure was predominantly the responsibility of the officials run by people. run by seniors officials. if i can give another example which is one of my favorites, defense procurement. the endless money is wasted, endless projects delayed, somehow the wrong decisions will always taken by somebody who is left or moved on whether it s an official or minister. nobody is held accountable. nobody is held responsible for the endemic failures in defense procurement. isn t there something with the accountability we have when that is the case? i think we do need to improve it. i m in favor of examining with you how much more we can open up the question of civil servants. i don t draw i don t believe that thomas was right to resign. we do need to make objections. i think there are sensitive difficult issues here. we have to think about it quite carefully. there is a kind of sort of unspoken conspiracy, i don t wish to trust this on steven doyle s inquiry which he s conducting in the moment in the aftermath of francis that somehow the ministers are not responsible because the people down the line are responsible. somehow we can t hold the officials accountable because of the aadoption of ministerial responsibility. the result is the worst tragedy has occurred we can possibly imagine and nobody resigns, nobody s held accountable, and it really i think you are being unfair. very clearly the management on the board of this hospital are responsible. the tragedy in the system is that they weren t held properly accountable at the time. who gave them their independence? that was a decision made. who set the target culture and who enforced it? that was senior officials in maiden white hall. where are the ministers and seniors officials responsible for the policy? as i said in the house the other day. i think everyone has to consider their responsibilities with regard to this. but francis goes through in quite a lot of detail. you can read the section about the changing of authority. department of health. he finds all sorts of failures. he does say don t scape ghote. scapegoat. he doesn t specifically point the finger at people other than the management. the whole commission, miraculous come up with a different answer. information to the public domain, but it does stop short of doing what you say. just to give strength to the open door i think you are offering us on this question of the accountability of civil servants. in the holding report, there is a very interesting sentence where it foreshadows the arrival of department committees and then it goes on to say. any such committees would require to be furnished with full information as to the course of administration pursued by the departments with which they were concerned, and for this purpose it would be requisite that ministers as well as officers of departments should appear before them to explain and defend the acts for which they were responsible. the shock that i think how they would have is that ministers appear so often in front of select committees that it isn t it s axiomatic as the estimates committee, axiomatic that officials would be responsible for reporting hard facts to select committees. unconstrained by this over perhaps over ached doctrine. i think it s over regulate slightly overregulated. the select committee feels absolutely free, quite rightly, some officials from the home office, police, give them a good drilling. try to get to the bottom. that s what select committees do. that s good. i think you are overinterpreting how restrictive you are. but officials have refused to answer questions because they are protecting their minister. and on issues of fact, my colleague will be able to illuminate a particular instance, and surely civil servants should be obliged to answer questions of fact and administration before a select committee whether or not the minister has pleaded with them not to give the committee the facts. as i say i m open to that discussion. i m very grateful. i think it s a good one to have. there are some people who say that this all should be sorted
money. my job is not just to entertain you but to try to teach and coach you. so call me at 1-800-743-cnbc. somewhere along the line, the psychology shifted. somewhere along the line, it stopped feeling good to sell and started feeling loathsome and stupid. somewhere we developed seller s remorse after a stock transaction. and we see it now every day, including today where the market opened down, right? people sold. and then it rebounded. the dow closing up 50 points, the nasdaq 9, s&p 5. we typically associate buyers or sellers remorse with real estate. there is a ton of second guessing about the homes bought in the 2006-2008 time frame, justifiably so. you know the litany of should have, would have, could have. did i pay too much? and then what was i thinking music, finally now what do i do? anger, denial, acceptance trilogy. isn t that what it s been like to buy a stock for most of the last decade, often because of how whippy the market s been? you would buy a stock, and by the time you bought the report you might have been down badly on it. it s why i suggest you use limit orders because of the prospect of being down a buck by the time you get a report on 3m or a caterpillar was so great that you had to defend yourself against the swift selling that undermined this market for ages. but now with the multiyear highs that the dow hits seemingly day after day, now doesn t it seem like the world has changed? now we get seller s remorse almost daily. now we feel palpable pain whenever we let stocks go? how do i know this? you see, i run a trust, a charitable trust where all the proceeds are donated to charity, and there are a ton of stocks frankly i can t even look at anymore. i took off my cell phone app, the one you press where it has all the ones, i had to eliminate them. try to shield my eyes from. i m not kidding, shield my eyes from. even when i watch the tape underneath our host, i can t stop, darn it all, darn it all, because they went up huge after i sold them. i ve got bad seller s remorse. let me give you a few examples of just how raw i feel. a real chafing. gold bond doesn t help. hydrocortisone doesn t work. even neosporin is not working for me. this morning boeing, how the company insists yet again it s about to get approval for the newfangled battery solution for the dreamliner, like a duracell? no. my charitable trust bought boeing beautifully, paying in the 60s at one of the previous set of worries about the dreamliner that were not realized. it caused the stock to run $75 and people realized it was okay. at that time the japanese pulled the dreamliner from service, what seemed like a totally intractable problem. mind you, this was just when we realized when the republicans weren t as concerned about the sequester as we thought, were willing to let the cutback of the military spending happen. but i still felt wow, this one s got to go lower. with the stock hanging in the mid-70s, i figure what a break, i can get out of boeing. get into something else less risky, which by the way i did. that doesn t really matter right now. sure enough, the trust, which is comanaged by stephanie link, who is also a contributor to cnbc and which you can follow along at actionalertsplus.com, a website devoted to show you where we are doing and what we re going to do before we do it, the trust got a great price on the boeing. and soon after the stock dropped a dollar, whoopie! typical pattern, right? no seller s remorse on our part. just victory! ever since then, what s happened, first the airliners, they found more smoking batteries. oh, man, that s bad, right? second, the transportation department downgraded them. third, the sequester is going into effect and this is a very tough thing for the defense contractors. and the stock? it s rallied to $82. i feel like i should wear a kick me sign on myself because i m so angry what has happened. [ buzzer ] we re taking thoughts. how smart did we feel that we had bought mickey d s for this trust? right into a major firm s downgrade at 85 bucks. this is one of the highest quality stocks around. peaked at 101 and change on a couple of missed quarters. rarely do you get an entry point that is as good as one created by that kind of downgrade, but believe me, it took a lot of patience, and we definitely had buyer s remorse initially. sure enough, it levitates every couple of months in the 90s. i think wait a second, prices could roar. competition is getting tough. management is new. dollar getting stronger. the numbers haven t turned. so ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching. we take the darn thing off the table. sell, sell, sell, sell, sell, sell. genius, right? i look like a genius, because immediately the stock traded down to $90 after the sale. and for all we know, that sucker was headed all the way down. we got that downgrade. have you seen mcdonald s now? the golden arches has galloped to $98 and change. i got egg mcmuffin all over my face. and what exactly has happened? nothing. it keeps posting negative numbers. they re just not negative enough. how about wells fargo? trust had a nice sized position and missed a couple of quarters and failed. technical speak for couldn t break the 36. finally, what do we do? we got tired of it and we blew out of the darn thing. a couple weeks ago, bought some other financials. just in case you think we re a complete bunch of idiots, have done amazingly well. still, i can t look at wells fargo because it broke out above 36 since then. i get furious any time i read or see anything about the stock. don t mention the stock to me if i m walking down the street and you see me. what happened? nothing at all. the stress test, i figured we would break down to 34. uh-uh. i got angry when i saw the ex-ceo on our air this evening, a total argh moment. [ booing ] finally, worse for less, southwestern energy. we put up with this one for ages, for ages in the trust. just thinking that natural gas this is all natural gas play. how long can this thing stay down? how long? the answer, as long as we owned it. and then when the trust sold it at a loss, it then ramped three bucks. final indignity. someone on this panel last week, because the dow breaking out, i was on with my friend john najarian, and he said southwestern was starting to roar. let me just tell you something, if you weren t so big, i would have tried to take him down and give him the business. but then again, i never pick a fight unless i got a big enough guy right behind me to step in the moment i cause trouble. and the only big guy around was john s brother pete. so i didn t like the odds. you need to know this stuff, because the seller s remorse is what is driving the tape right now. fear of not having enough stock. fear of looking at a stock that just zoomed after we sold it. fear of the various cliffs and payroll taxes and sequesters in italian french and spanish and greek and cyprus that turn out to not have any real impact on the stocks you own and you sold them because of it. after a while you just don t feel like selling anything. that s how stocks do end up going higher, lack of natural supply, supply that has been there for more than a decade. these buyers keep waiting for the pullback, right? but it gets harder to wait. i have no doubt that seller s remorse won t last forever. hey, look, there will come a moment where once again you ll be furious you held on. heck, it could be tomorrow. i m sure the sell it man, go away crowd are not planning on having any seller s remorse. i know people who bought dick s on friday before it fell $5.49. today, they got a bad case of buyer s remorse. but the bottom line, it s real clear. it s a new development when you sell a stock and see it move up immediately. not just a little. we haven t felt seller s remorse since the 90s. it sure is here now, though. now it s infected the mind of all the investors who are so sick of seeing the stocks they dumped go higher that they just don t feel like selling anything anymore. dan in florida, please. dan? caller: boo-yah to dr. cramer. boo-yah. what s up? caller: regards to ge, i know jeff immelt had a news conference today in records to returning $18 billion to his investors with regards to dividends. uh-huh. caller: and i want to know is now the time to get in or out? i had bought ge when it was $16, you know. i bought a thousand shares. should i hold on? well, yeah. stephanie link and i, she is co-director of action alerts plus, we scaled out a little when we read that. we thought jeff immelt was a little downbeat about the political situation. if the stock came in, we would buy it back. i got to tell you something, i think it is an opportunity. when these stocks go down and they re high quality like this with big dividends and dividends coming bigger? you know what? you got to step up to the plate when they give you a little opportunity. hey, it might not last, but seller s remorse is back and it s bigger than ever with a vengeance. investors are tired of watching their stocks go higher after they sell them. what it s saying is shoot me. i m not selling them anymore. stay with cramer. coming up, financial face-off. the kings of capital are clashing as big money managers jockey over finding the best returns for investors. while private equity deals accelerate, you could benefit. cramer s got his eye on the potential best of the bunch that could give you a boost. and later, good dog? petsmart has been playing dead since hitting highs late last year. is this pullback an opportunity to throw the stock a bone, or could it continue to roll over? sit, stay! cramer is taking this one off the leash to see if it could run. plus, hot and cold? shares of chart industries have been off the charts as of late as the natural gas infrastructure play continues to ride the domestic energy development trend. could this stock fill up your tank, or it is ready to cool off? don t miss cramer s exclusive with its ceo, all coming up on mad money. don t miss a second of mad money. follow @jimcramerer on twitter. have a question? tweet cramer, #madtweets. send jim an e-mail to madmoney@cnbc.com or give us a call at 1-800-743-cnbc. miss something? head to madmoney.cnbc.com. doesn t take a genius to figure out we ve got an absolute roaring bull market in publicly traded stocks. the s&p is not many points away from record levels. the dow seems to enter a new high every day. but what if i told you there was an even hotter bull market out there right now. i m talking about private equity, pe, which is totally en fuego right now. private equity firms buying companies using borrowed money. then they typically fire a bunch of people, streamline the business, and then years later they take profits by bringing the company public via an ipo. [ applause ] virtuous circle. central banks around the world are keeping interest rates low. so there is lots of cheap money they can use to finance their leveraged buyouts. at the same time the stock market is in terrific shape and ipos have been doing very well. which means private equity funds can realize enormous gains when they sell in the public market and there is every sign with the housing market improving the overall economy will keep getting stronger, so things are likely to get even better from here. that s my view. i know it s a minority. i got shouted down even today whenever i talk about this. i don t care. it s my view. but there is a problem. the vast majority of you cannot invest in private equity funds because just like the hedge funds, it only allows people who are already wealthy to put their money in these high-risk vehicles. if you re rich enough, your money would be locked up for years. no way to get it out. you can buy the stocks of asset management companies that have some stake or presence in private equity. stocks like blackstone, black rock, apollo group or global management. they make their money from fees related to the size of the assets they manage and the performance of the assets. given that more money is flowing in and the value of the assets has been rising, these private equity stocks and some of their brethren have been on fire. and i think the move is early. so the question we need to ask is which of these asset managers is the best buy right here? in a healthy stock market, like we have right now, i think it s one that doesn t have a lot of private equity, but has a tremendous amount of assets under management, and that s blackrock, blk. i think it s the best of the whole bunch because it s diversified. hence it s why my charitable trust owns it. you can follow along at actionalertsplus.com. why blackrock? because it s the largest asset manager in the world, okay, not just private equity, but assets. $3.8 trillion in assets. we ve seen larry fink on tv. he runs the company. he is terrific. only 30% in fixed income, which is wall street speak for bonds. the equity funds have developed the track record of somewhat underperforming. but blackrock has managed to turn this part of the business around by replacing four of their five managers. they have seen strong inflow in the domestic and international funds. nice switch. $47 billion worth, up 8% year-over-year. but you know what the thing is that really sets blackrock apart? this is not a pure private equity thesis at all. what it is, they have a huge exchange-traded business, the etf business. blackrock runs ishares, which is the largest family of etfs in existence. the company acquired credit suisse and with that deal, blackrock now controls over 40% of the etf market, more than double the market share of their next closest competitor. now that people are getting excited about the stock market again, i think etfs are going to roar throughout 2013. i may not have much use for the funds except for gld, but investors can t get enough of this stuff. they like financial innovation, and blackrock is making a killing off of it. in december, capital flows into blackrock s etfs showed a 30% gain. in january up 23%. and within the etf business, blackrock s high fee emerging markets funds are really hot. 3.4 billion in january flowed into the funds. the company boosted dividends. got a yield at 2.7%, the stock hasn t really done anything in the last five years. it s a lower yield but it s a very safe one. and as the business improves, blackstone s ability to raise should dramatically clear. so you get a high quality management asset with the market leading etf business and a strong position in risk management. i think that makes for a fabulous long-term investment for most individuals out there. the one problem with blackrock is that of all the money they manage, and they manage a huge amount, only 5% in some private equity funds, and i want that bang for the buck of private equity. if you re like me and you want something with more private equity exposure, i m giving you kkr, carlyle, apollo, and blackstone. these are more risky than blackrock, but let s go over them. carlyle has a beautiful base yield of 6.8%, but the actual yields are often higher as they return lots of excess capital to shareholders at the end of the year. carlyle doesn t have enough fee-based income for me to be as comfortable with, but it certainly should be looked at. kkr sports a 6.7% yield. and while it s a stable, well run business, i don t know how much upside there, but it s still very good. my bias is to like these stocks. apollo gives you a 7.9% yield. if you believe the economy is going to get much worse, this would be the one to buy. apollo is an expert at finding distressed assets. i talked to people who think the economy is about to get much worse because of the sequester. but for me, if you re looking for a winner in the private equity sector, the winner is the blackstone group. it s got a lower yield because the stock has appreciated. a 5.5% base yield, just made a new high today. i think it can break out here. back on december 21st when everyone was freaking out about whether we were going to fall off the cliff no, no, agh! and go splat, i told you to buy blackstone as a speculative bet, where things would work out better. we bridged the cliff and blackstone has rallied some 30% since then. and now i think blackstone works as a nonspeculative investment based on the strength of its fundamentals in 2013, long runway. see, the company reported at the end of january, and the conference call was extremely bullish with ceo steven schwartzman saying they re at an inflection point, meaning blackstone is going to get aggressive about exiting its position in order to take profits in this bullish environment. blackstone gets roughly 24% of its revenues from private equity, about 24% from real estate, which we know is getting better, and 27% from its credit division, the company s fastest growing segment. along with 16% from hedge funds, and the rest are advisory fees. management said they see substantially higher realizations over the next two years. that s wall street speak meaning that they intend to sell a lot more properties because they think they can get good prices. i agree with them. and as for the private equity side, in the last two years, blackstone has brought eight of the private companies in its portfolio public. remember, that s how these private equity firms ring the register. in just the next 12 months, they plan on doing another eight ipos. so boy, is this a good business. and i think it s accelerating, and accelerating dramatically. house of pleasure! and blackstone is paying you a nice yield while you wait. here is the bottom line. right now we are witnessing an asset management renaissance driven by the strength of the stock market and of private equity. how to play it? just remember that in finance, as in fashion, black never goes out of style. blackrock is my favorite in part because of their huge etf business, but if you want more private equity exposure, blackstone is the way to go. although this is such a fabulous moment for all of these companies, you know what? i would be happy to see any of them, literally any one of them in your portfolio. after the break, i ll try to make you more money. coming up, good dog? petsmart has been playing dead since hitting all-time highs late last year. is this pullback an opportunity to throw the stock a bone, or could it continue to roll over? sit, stay! cramer is taking this one off the leash to see if it could run. eight years around here, and we re still in that never ending hunt for value. and in this uber bullish market, where so many stocks are at or near their highs, genuine bargains are hard to spot. how do we find stocks that represent true value still after this run with averages? we look for names that have pulled well back off their highs, even as we think the underlying fundamentals have remained strong. we have to search through the broken stocks, not companies, to find new opportunities. take petsmart, petm. the retailer of all things pet-related that has been on the decline ever since mid-december to the point where it s down more than nine points from its highs. now even though petsmart has been in the doghouse lately, [ barking ] this company has been a long-time cramer fave, and the stock has a fabulous long-term track record, having run up from $13.50, to a gain of 365% over the last four years. not bad. now petsmart has stumbled, but i m betting the company can get some of that long-term mojo back, because no matter how the stock might look right now, including that chart which is hideous, petsmart is a winner, just like banana joe, the kind of weird looking winner of this year s westminster dog show. why do i think it can bounce back? this company has been hit with a series of woes in recent months. first, there is a big management shake-up. you know i don t like that. in november the cfo announced he would be stepping down. in mid-january, petsmart announced a series of planned management changes, including bob moran, the current chairman and ceo stepping down, from the ceo post, leaving the current chief operating officer to take his job. nobody likes uncertainty at the top, and that is spooking shareholders. the thing that really caused petsmart to get hammered was the disappointing quarter. the stock dropped four points in a nanosecond after trading. petsmart delivered a three cent earnings beat, wait a second, rising just 14.7 year-over-year. and the actual earnings beat was driven by a combination of lower taxes and equity income, not from the strength of the underlying business, and that freaked people out. meanwhile, the company s same store sales rose 4.6%, a bit shy of wall street s expectations and petsmart gave disappointing guidance. the stock fell from 66.55, vicious decline. when something like that happens, we need to ask what the heck went wrong? in petsmart s case, there were two major factors behind the disappointment. first of all, the company was up against very strong comparisons. that makes it difficult to put up numbers that impress. secondly, more important, i actually want to blame the analyst community for not seeing this coming, and that caused a big drop-off. the consensus estimates of petsmart have been very rigid, despite all the things that went wrong in the fourth quarter, and many predictable, including hurricane sandy shutting down a big swath of the northeast for a week or more in some places. even though petsmart disappointed, these numbers shouldn t have been that much of a surprise. but the analysts didn t take the numbers down ahead of it. still, the company just reported what many consider a lousy quarter. that makes me think why am i out here recommending the stock? am i simply banking on the fact that this has been an incredibly forgiving market where lots of companies have missed numbers like target or walmart, only to see their stocks ultimately surge higher? okay, that is a part of it. target has had an amazing year. the real reason is petsmart has come down to a point where i think it represents some value versus its growth rate. the 2013 guidance that everyon is pooh-poohing is actually not that bad, maybe even darn good, up nine, the stock was too expensive. down nine it s cheap. many people in america treat their cats and dogs better than they treat their kids. now, wait a second, that s understandable given that dogs are generally obedient, cats rarely give you back talk, they don t sneak off to drink vodka, they don t smoke between classes, their music is my music. pet adoption has just increased for the fourth quarter in the united states. that s important, because the first year of owning a cat or dog is usually the most lucrative time for petsmart, as owners go nuts. they re so excited. they go nuts. it s like a first baby. they invest lots of money up-front buying all kinds of pet paraphernalia. as i know from the time i was caring for ishkabibble, my all white cat. i bought everything petsmart had to offer, including a martha stewart cat bed that he could have cared less about. then again, there is no accounting for taste. i also think that maybe the fact that he was formerly named don julio, which is not my favorite tequila, may have affected his psyche. i should have just called him el jimador. petsmart remains the market leader in this business. they got almost 1300 stores around the country. management believes they can get the store count up to 1800, which means they still have a lot more room to grow. and the plan is to open another 40 to 55 big box stores this year, along with microsized stores. the next one in brooklyn, i may add. what about the guidance? it calls for 15% growth. that s a little slower than the 20% growth, mid 20% growth we ve seen over the past few years. but petsmart has a habit of giving conservative guidance. the conference call management admitted it s being incredibly conservative this time around. even if that number turns out to be right, petsmart is only trading 14 times earnings. i think 2013 is going to be a good year for petsmart. they told us sales have improved each week. that s very bullish. it s something we are not yet hearing from other retailers. you can also think of petsmart as a play on the housing recovery. okay, we re billion a million new homes this year. i think that s conservative. let s just leave it as that. as people move into their own home, then they re more likely to buy a pet. plus, petsmart is always coming up with innovative new products. they even have a partnership with disney. they got the disney thing going. they sell branded pet apparel. i have often wondered if pets like alice in wonderland or peter pan or donald duck. i guess they do or they wouldn t make, this right? this is what they want. they re selling more and more expensive super premium pet food, novel protein like bison meat and venison. i like venison broil. like london broil. the humanization, they used this throughout the conference call. the humanization of pet trends. humans are feeding human food. i had dog food early on in the series of the shows and i did throw up. anyway, even though the quarter wasn t so hot, petsmart still posted double-digit comps in their higher margin categories, which means this trend of people spending a fortune on their pets, it s not going away. it s very much intact. and petsmart isn t just a retailer. they also provide all sorts of pet-related services. do you know the company has a kennel business with 196 pets hotels, many of which would be considered at least four stars in a canine tripadvisor. as well as a vet business, 791 vet hospitals. but it s services like these that keep people coming back to the stores because they can t be duplicated online. you have a pethotel.com? no! over the past five years they have been optimizing their assets via better merchandisers. a lot of the moves we ve seen from home depot. and i think these moves will keep paying off. here is the bottom line. petsmart, no doubt they stumbled, but down here at 62 bucks and change, i think the stock represents terrific value. the pet theme is very much alive. this is no pet cemetery. this is not a stephen king story. petsmart is still the best way to play it. the company s conservative guidance for 2013 means they ll be able to beat the numbers going forward, in my opinion. that s why i think this stock is going higher, possibly much higher, as people realize that humanization of pets is a trend that is here to stay. and petsmart, it s a habitat for animal humanity. gary in new jersey. gary? caller: hey, jim. how you doing? couldn t be better, gar. how about you? caller: boo-yah to you. back at you. caller: footlocker. earnings were good, the company made tons of money. the stock keeps falling. is it a buy, sell or hold? stay away from that right now. too many people saying it s a buying opportunity. i need to see capitulation. when i see capitulation, i m all over it. until then, i d rather stay away. by the way, nike wasn t that bad on the after the dick s conference call. let s take a look at that one. all right, the dogs are out. pet care is a theme that is here to stay. petsmart i think is the best way to play it. and i m regarding this pullback of a broken stock, not a broken company, as an opportunity. now let me have some tuna. i ll see you later. lightning round coming up next. before we get to the lightning round, we re coming up on a big milestone here in cramerica. friday marks our eighth anniversary. yep, eight years of mad money. can you believe it? to celebrate, we re looking back at some of our favorite moments, like this one, for example. after the wild market we ve been having, i m prescribing some family therapy. i do have a question for you, for the future, i ve been thinking about this for a while. and i was [ applause ] will you marry me? yes! my god. congratulations! i saw that one coming. maybe i ll have to do it some day myself. remember, it all happens friday. but before the show, we need to hear from you. i want to hear your favorite moment. we have a few choices for you to pick from. so i want you to do this. i want you to head to madmoney.cnbc.com. i ll remind you @jimcramer on twitter. we ll let you know. we ll reveal your favorite this friday during our eighth anniversary show. and now it is time, it is time for the lightning round ! where you say the stock buy, buy, buy. sell, sell, sell. play this sound [ buzzer ] and then the lightning round is over. are you ready, skee-daddy? it s time for the lightning round. start with fred in florida. fred? caller: boo-yah, mr. cramer. boo-yah! caller: first off, i want to thank you and your staff for everything you do for us. all right. you re welcome. caller: i d like to have your take on isrg. this is too much of a battleground for me. i know my friend herb greenberg is working a lot on this thing. i like to back away when i hear that no-man s land. let s go to john in florida. john? caller: jim, good to hear from you. and thank you for your show. i ve learned a lot by watching you and your books. thank you very much. you re a gent. what s up? caller: i have pbi, a lot of it. i m worried about that stock. now, look, the last quarter was good. i love to see the company come back on because the yield is outsized, and we ve done so much work. when you have a real outsized yield, it does worry me. i m going to say no comment until they come on the show. dino in california, please. dino? caller: jimmy! yo, yo. caller: can i get a bang on the drum cymbal? [ drums ] right on. now you give a stock, and we re equal. caller: all right. had an old-timer call me last week about a grain and seed agriculture play. i was wondering what you think about adm. i like adm. hey, listen, this old-timer was doing mojies today. i m doing stuff like you can be an old-timer. i m sending stuff to everyone, telling me knock it off by the end of the day. cliff in florida, please. cliff? caller: boo-yah, jim. boo-yah. caller: how you doing? i m all right. how about you? caller: very good. i ve been watching your show for the last five years. i think you do a great job for the average investor. thank you. caller: you re welcome. the one i m calling on, i have this in my i.r.a. recently, but it s western asset mortgage capital corp. oh man, this is cmbs play. i hate to punt. i have to do more work on this one. each one of these is an individual. you know i like annaly. run by the great mike farrell, set that company up in terrific state. agnc. we will do work on yours. robert in tennessee. robert? caller: boo-yah, jim, from tennessee. how you doing? really good. how about you? caller: i m excellent. thanks for asking. got a question about groupon, grpn. yeah, groupon. i see zynga moving up. why should i go with a company that probably has a business? let s take one more. let s go to where i think is going to be number one in basketball. let s go to joe in indiana. joe? caller: boo-yah, jim. how about two harbors investment, ticker symbol two? very high yielding stock. oh, man, another mortgage real estate investment trust. we re going to compare the two harbors and the western asset. that i promise you, and we ll have that by monday probably. it s going to take a little time. it s our eighth anniversary show coming up. but that, ladies and gentlemen, is the conclusion of the lightning round ! [ buzzer ] the lightning round is sponsored by td ameritrade. coming up, hot and cold? shares of chart industries have been off the charts as of late. as the natural gas infrastructure play continues to ride the domestic energy development trend. could this stock fill up your tank, or it is ready to cool off? don t miss cramer s exclusive with its ceo. so, when my prostate cancer returned, my doctor told me that this time can be different with provenge, a personalized treatment that lets me count on my own body to fight back. provenge is clinically proven to help extend life in certain men with advanced prostate cancer by taking your own blood cells and reprogramming them to jump-start your immune system, so it can attack your prostate cancer. provenge can cause serious reactions including those resulting from the infusion, and stroke. severe but infrequent infusion reactions include chills, fever, fatigue, weakness, breathing difficulties like shortness of breath, decreased oxygen and wheezing, dizziness, headache, high blood pressure, muscle ache, nausea, and vomiting. tell your doctor about all of your medical problems, including heart problems, lung problems, or history of stroke. call 1-800-843-8193 for more information. talk to your doctor and find out if the time is right for provenge. right now we re in the middle of an energy renaissance here in north america. it s one of the biggest themes guiding this market. and the tragedy is that even though we have all the plentiful natural gas we could ever want, our leaders in washington just don t have the vision or the will to take advantage of it as a cheaper, cleaner replacement fuel for surface vehicles that would promote domestic security. but while our politicians may be clueless, our corporations seem to know a good thing when they see it. just last week we got two piece of very good news on the nat gas front. particularly for vehicles. first, shell announced it s building two plants to supply liquified natural gas or lng for use for fuel in ships. and these plants will double our lng gas production in north america. second, we learned the burlington northern santa fe railroad is running tests. we don t know how many, but running tests of natural fuel. best way to play? it s still chart industries, the company that makes the cryogenic equipment that is needed to transform natural gas into a liquid. chart sells storage tanks for transporting liquified natural gas, tanks for heavy trucks. industrial gas division and a biomedical biz. so it has railroad vehicles, railroad opportunity alone could represent an $8 billion market for them. but they also profit from building the equipment for liquified natural gas. all sorts of facilities like the kind that shell is building, and maybe some of the export places where we either use the natural gas or lose it. i think they make money. i first recommended the stock back in february 2011. now it s at $81. it s a 113% gain. chart reported a fabulous quarter. the stock jumped 5 bucks on the news and it hasn t looked back since. let s check in with sam thomas, the chairman, president and ceo of chart industries to find out more about the quarter and its prospects going forward. welcome back to mad money. thank you so much for coming in. i read through the quarter and i see natural gas is exploding, but to me it s more of a china story than a united states story. well, it s a global story, jim. it s just where it s taking off the fastest. we talked previously about how china was several years ahead of the u.s. because of their commitment to use natural gas and particularly lng for transportation. in addition to the energy cost driver for them, they ve got a tremendous driver from improving the environment. right. and that s becoming a critical issue for the government of china. so that s really helping to drive it. we re going to see the same things here in the u.s. driving us in the u.s. is the cost savings. right. and our ability to be energy independent by using natural gas. but the environmental benefits are also going to be a significant part of our driver. it confuses me. the chinese have the will power. they don t have the shale nat gas. we ve got the nat gas. we don t seem to have the will power, at least in washington. not in washington, but that can be a blessing. we don t want help like we got help with ethanol. right. okay. fair enough. this is being driven on economics. and yes, it s taking time. i believe we re well beyond the tipping point. you do? even though i m reading like fed ex said last week, it s coming, the tipping point. dave demers from westport says it s coming. you think we re beyond the tipping point? well, in terms of actual sales, actual consumption of natural gas and transportation, the tipping point is coming. but in terms of key people making the commitment and putting the investment in to make it happen, that s happening. this announcement with shell is big. this was the big one. everyone missed it. don t you think it s interesting that it got about three inches in the papers? wasn t this the big one? well, i think we ve had a few false starts with a couple of the natural gas companies. right. saying that they were going to get in and support it strongly. and natural gas pricing collapse led to them having to pull back. they didn t have the depth of the balance sheet. what we need is the depth of the balance sheet of an energy major like shell to come along and say we re going to make this commitment. it s going to take five years, six years, seven years for us to build out these liquefiers, but they re not going to turn back. is there anybody else that does this besides you? there are a number of other competitors both in the u.s. and in china. none of them are as committed to it as we are. we built most of this equipment, designed most of it, adapted it from the industrial gas industry, and we re now at the point where lots of people are sniffing around. right. offering their products. big companies with big balance sheets are getting involved and taking a position. we re having a number of people in china, both looking at china and also looking at the u.s. market, but we feel with our commitment to it and our continued investment in development of this process, we ll remain a strong player in it. okay. so now i want to go over if i am in washington. i hear about a possibility that the chinese are worried about air quality. they re supposed to not be that caring about it. we re supposed to care a great deal. this has it in air quality. domestic security. we know the defense budget is being cut back. what a great way to make it so that we re actually increasing some of our domestic security. and then jobs. i read about your factory. you re expanding. you re putting people to work. yes. if you have a jobs crisis, isn t chart one of the answers? absolutely. we re hiring both in the u.s. and in china. now, it s not always a straight line. right. there are plateaus, leveling off, and then another up leg. but it s a tremendous opportunity. and natural gas is just a wonderful opportunity for the north american and particularly the u.s. economy. it s going to be a tremendous growth and jobs driver, whether it s used for natural gas transportation, exported. that creates jobs, or it s used for petrochemicals to help give us low-cost feed stocks to make us a world class manufacturer of a whole range of petrochemical downstream products like plastics. i m going to leave it on that positive note, because i hear too much negativity all the time. that s about as good a story there is. that s sam thomas, chairman, president and ceo of chart industries. hey, sometimes you can do well, do good and make money. gtls. stay with cramer. you waited and you wanted a dip. today you got it big-time on dick s. a real shortfall, crummy outlook. ross stores last week. a 10% hammering. a good opportunity, or are you just scared to buy? are you worried that the selling isn t over? i have to tell you that i think both companies have now one fell swoop lowered the bar to make it so you should feel comfortable buying them, even as nobody i know seems to agree with me. this market has a real bias right now against discounters, the way it has a bias against the high-end like tiffany last year. pretty much every industry gets hurt these days. last week petsmart got dinged. we had seen ascena get pounded not that long ago. and of course bed, bath & beyond and best buy got crushed at the end of last year. but take a look at the latter two players. bed bath a possible private equity takeout. i believe it could happen if the near-term fundamentals aren t that strong. no matter what i say people believe amazon can crush bby. isn t that what people said about best buy, that amazon is killing the hard goods retailer? it s become the last man standing in a business that has some sort of housing tailwind now. stock s at 20. i think it never should have gotten down to where it was. i thought that was wrong. best buy always had a decent balance sheet and decent cash flow, it s a place you can go to buy hard goods and have them set up for you, which is not easy these days for some of these complicated tvs. my takeaway is they re viable once they settle. the stocks come back and come back with a vengeance. i think dick s and ross will be the same. the weather gets better, they ll do fine. the company is being punished unnecessarily. it was too warm to sell the winter gear. they had to do serious discounting. that s why the numbers are no good. right now ross has been hated. it has much more room to grow. it s still a good discounter that has had a couple of off months. credit that was virtually deserved with a good quarter they reported. of course, everyone comes on tv and says they want to buy on a pullback, but when you get the actual dip, nobody wants it. the stocks are hated. potential buyers hem and haw and walk away. wait until you see yum tomorrow. that s what happened with yum. remember, they gave up on it. china is okay. the stock stays broken for a while. enough time passes and people forget why they sold it. then these stocks rally back to where they were before they got crushed. it seems that only then, only then do people start doing some buying. dick s and ross, two broken stocks, not broken companies. just what you should be looking for in this steaming hot market that some say never seems to take a break. stick with cramer.
be with them and with all who labor here to serve this great nation and its people. assure them that whatever their responsibilities, you provide the grace to enable them to be faithful in their duties and the wisdom to be conscious of their obligations and fulfill them with integrity. remind us all of the dignity of work and teach us to use our talents and abilities in ways that are honorable and just and are a benefit to those we serve. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day s proceedings and announces to the house her approval thereof. his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? pursuant to clause 1, rule 1, i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker s approval of the journal. the speaker: the question is on agreeing to the speaker s approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. mr. speaker, i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. fitzpatrick. mr. fitzpatrick: our guests in the gallery, please rise. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. fitzpatrick: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker: without objection. mr. fitzpatrick: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to honor the lifetime service of harry w. fox who passed away in pennsylvania this week. i m fortunate and honored to have known harry fox and benefited from his leadership. on a personal level, his friendship and advice made me a stronger public servant and person. as role of republican chairman, harry was selfless and mag in an muss. everything he did was to the benefit of bucks county where he was born, married, raised and family and served his community in elected office. harry was recognized as an effective leader and decision maker because he led the party based on principles and worked tirelessly to find common ground. his only request of me of a public servant was to take care of bucks county. we ll never see another like harry again. our community has lost a giant of a man, strong in stature and principle and humility and graciousness. may he be granted eternal graceful that he earned. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. thank you, madam speaker. mr. barrow: madam speaker, it s a great sadness that i rise to honor jack who passed away at the age of 93. for 34 years, jack represented augusta, georgia, as a member of the georgia house of representatives. or 26 of those years, jack served as speaker protemperature of the georgia house. speaker pro tempore of the georgia house. he worked as a traveling salesman, went on to own several businesses in the augusta community and began a long career of public service. someone once said it s easier to fight for your country than it is to live for your country. jack did both which we can all be grateful. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from missouri seek recognition? to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. hartzler: the 113th congress was elected to tackle the big problems and there is nothing more than getting hardworking americans back to work with the skills they need to compete in a very tough economy. today the federal government currently operates more than 50 different job training programs, many of which are duplicative. at a cost of $18 million annually to taxpayers. with nearly 20 million americans unemployed or underemployed, it s time to cut through the red tape and start training individuals with the skills they need to find high-paying middle-class jobs. mrs. wagner: that s why the house will take up the skills lap, which overlaps training programs which eliminates unnecessary red tape so state and local resources goes directly to job seekers. according to the report released by st. louis community college, 76% of employers said that employees lack proper training to contribute right away on the most important demand certificates for job openings were for registered nurses. the skills acts addresses those needs. we need to invest in nurses, manufacturing assistants and cut the ineffective government programs that do little to train employees for the skills they need. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. wilson: madam speaker, it s now been 803 days since i arrived in congress and the republican leadership has still not allowed a single vote on serious legislation to address our unemployment crisis. my question is simple, why then are we here? in poll after poll, election after election, unemployment ranks as our constituents number one priority and for good reason. unemployment deprives people of their basic dignity, their health care, their homes and their self-worth. and high levels of unemployment deprive the government of the tax revenue needed to overcome our fiscal challenges. president obama has proposed the comprehensive american jobs act to get people trained, get people working and get people contributing to the tax base. mr. speaker madam speaker, it s time to bring this bill to the floor. our mantra should be simple jobs, jobs, jobs. people are suffering. people are hurting for jobs, jobs, jobs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady s time has expired. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: madam speaker, a message from the president of the united states. the secretary: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: mr. secretary. the secretary: i am directed by the president of the united states to deliver to the house of representatives a message in writing. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. madam speaker, today i speak of the importance of working together to adopt a budget on time in the 113th congress. mr. hultgren: for the past few years the house passed a responsible budget that would rein in spending and debt without raising taxes while protecting the vital safety net of medicare and social security only to see the senate fail to pass any budget at all. this is irresponsible, and it cannot happen again this year. the american people and families back home in my district in illinois cannot afford a government that does not meet its basic responsibility to adopt a budget on time each year and every year. the very first bill i introduced in congress was the congressional pay accountability act of 2011, legislation if congress fails to meet its statutory deadline to meet appropriation bills on time then members of congress should not get paid. this straightforward concept defines what every american family and job creator understands, that you cannot spend more than you take in. let s act responsibly to pass a budget and work with our closing in the senate to ensure we get the job done this year. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman s time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. butterfield: madam speaker, i rise to honor and congratulate sergeant major andrea farmer who will soon retire from the united states army after 30 years of service. a native of north carolina s first district, sergeant major farmer s work ethic has allowed her to successfully hold a variety of positions, including chief career management n.c.o. sergeant major farmer s abilities resulted in her being awarded masters degrees in human affairs and receiving the army women legacy scholarship award. sergeant major farmer will retire as program manager for the 23rd quarter master, sexual assault prevention program where she works very hard to aid victims of sexual assault. that ith great pleasure i congratulate sergeant major andrea farmer upon her retirement and also to recognize andrea s parents, bobby and mildred farmer, of nash county, north carolina, who instilled high values in their daughter many years ago. i ask my colleagues to join me in thanking sergeant major farmer for 30 years of service to our country. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek rick anything? seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. for too many years our leaders have irresponsibly put off the tough decisions necessary to place our country on the sound financial footing. president obama seems not to be focused on the problem as he never even mentioned our nearly $17 trillion debt during his inaugural address and state of the union speech. his former budget director recently told a bipartisan group of freshmen representatives that unless you deal with the debt you re playing games with our economic future. unless you find savings with entitlements, you re playing games with the debt. you better go fix it. well, american taxpayers deserve and expect an accountable government, not a bloated bureaucracy in need of credit counseling. each passing year makes the decision more difficult and the changes more painful. medicare will be insolvent by 2024 which means we are rapidly squandering any chance to fix the problem. our $17 trillion debt which currently results in $220 billion in annual interest payments is a drag on our economy, deduring our ability to create jobs for american families. mr. pittenger: we must provide for the future. any plan to reform entitlements must preserve the current benefits promised to this generation while providing guaranteed options for future generations. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman s time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. madam speaker, i ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing the medal of honor day as well as honoring master sergeant richard pittman, a veteran who served more than 0 years in the marines. mr. mcnerney: he had the distinguished service medal, the republic of vietnam campaign medal along with others. mr. pittman was born in stockton, california, and attended local schools. after graduating from franklin high school in stockton, he enlisted in the united states marine corps. during the vietnam war, he was assigned as a rifleman to the third battalion, fifth marines and would later become squad leader. when on assignment near the demilitarized zone, his unit came under range. he risked his life while he exchanged fire and destroyed many enemy forces. i ve had the honor to get to know mr. pittman over the years and know he cares deeply for this con. i ask my colleagues to join me in honoring mr. pittman and all our veterans for their bravery and service to the united states. madam chairman, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? mr. fleming: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. fleming:, madam speaker, the assault on religious freedom must stop. the so-called h.h.s. mandate established under obamacare forces individuals, charities and businesses to buy health insurance that includes coverage for drugs which may destroy life. this week a federal judge stopped the enforcement of the h.h.s. mandate against the founder of domino s pizza, the former founder. like many other companies, domino s corporations, the company offers health insurance to its employees but not coverage for drugs that could destroy human life. to do so would violate the religious rights and beliefs of the companies owners. that injunction is a victory, but no one should have to battle the federal government in court to stop it from infringing on religious values. that s why i am proud to introduce with my colleagues, diane black and jeff fortenberry the health care conscience act, our government must not force people to violate their religious and moral beliefs. i ask everyone to sign on today to support this bill. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman s time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. madam speaker, i rise to recognize courageous women whose work on behalf of the advancement of human rights has inspired millions throughout the world and continues to shine a light on the cause of freedom just 90 miles away. for over 10 years, one has documented the realities of life in cuba through her blog. . they have earned their recognition throughout the world. the strength stands as a beacon of hope for cuba s future and her strength in the face of incredible odds has earned our community s profound admiration and respect. if my colleagues will indulge me, i would like to say a few words in spanish. [speaking in spanish. she ll be here next week and i ll ask our colleagues to take the opportunity to meet this very courageous woman. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman will provide translation to the official reporters. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 803. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 113 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 803. the chair appoints the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, to preside over he committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 803, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to reform and strengthen the work force investment system of a nation to put americans back to work and make the united states more competitive in the 21st century. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from minnesota, mr. klein, and the gentleman from crarks, mr. george miller, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. klein: madam chair, i rise in strong support of h.r. 803, the supporting knowledge and investing lifelong skills act, the skills act. and i yield myself such time as i may consume. he despite an increase in hiring last month, our nation is still experiencing a jobs crisis. 12 million americans are searching for work. nearly five million of these unemployed workers have been without a job for six months or longer. for many americans the hope of a new job grows more desperate the lodger they are unemployed. longer they are unemployed. jack has not had full-time work for more than three years and has lost count of the number of times he s applied for a job. he recently told cbs news, quote, from my perspective, my eyes, i still see that we are in a deep recession, close quote. today we have an opportunity to advance reforms that will give workers like jack a better chance to succeed. our economy is extreelly extremely competitive and constantly changing. unfortunately, the work force training system has failed to keep up. it s not surprising when you consider the size of the bureaucracy that now exists. this chart is a snapshot of the current job training system. it includes more than 50 programs spread across nine federal agencies. president obama described it as a, quote, maze of confusing training programs, close quote. i completely agree. the current system is inefficient and ineffective. for individuals serve the work force investment act, less than one in five completed training. fewer than half of those who received employment assistance such as job searches and resume writing were able to find work. to make matters worse, federal mandates stifle the engagement and innovation of employers and state and local leaders. onerous rules prevent workers from accessing the training they need when they need it. and taxpayer dollars are being spent with little accountability. a bloated bureaucracy is standing between workers and the support they need. we tried the washington knows best approach and it isn t working. it s time to move in a new direction. it is time for our work force training system that empowers job creators to meet the demands of a dynamic economy. it is time to give state and local leaders greater freedom to serve their communities. it is time for work force training system that spends taxpayer money wisely. it is time to invest less in bureaucracy and more in workers and training. the skills act will help us reach these goals. the legislation replaces 35 ineffective and duplicative programs with a new work force investment fund. no more maze of programs. instead, workers will get help through one simple and flexible source of employment support. the bill strengthens the role of job creators as well as state and local leaders who know best the needs of their work force. doing so will ensure the skill workers receive can be applied to the jobs of today and foot ture, not the past. the legislation also makes sure our most vulnerable workers, including veterans, disadvantaged youth, and individuals with disabilities are being served. finally, the skills act provides accountability over the use of taxpayer dollars. if a program demonstrates a pattern failure, then taxpayers will know about it. madam speaker, for 10 years congress has talked about job training he reform, but has failed to make reform a reality. it is time to fix the broken job training system and help put more americans back to work. i urge my colleagues to support the skills act and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. miller: i thank the gentlewoman. i yield myself four minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. miller: madam speaker, the house today is considering republican legislation that re-authorizes the work force investment act. rewriting work force investment act is an important task and should be taken seriously. this should be the opportunity to address some of the significant challenges to our economy including how to educate and train the diverse work force with the skills required to compete in a global market. for 40 years this task has been taken seriously by members of both parties. job training legislation was generally bipartisan. i wish we were here to present a bipartisan bill to the floor. i wish we were here to discuss the product of bipartisan negotiations. i wish we were here to consider something getting something done for the american people, but that s not the point of today s exercise. today we are here to meet the deadline set by the majority leader as part of a rebranding strategy. this bill is a political product. puts ideology over practical solutions. it fails to take an approach to what our workers and businesses need t decisively walks away from the program s mission of helping our most disadvantaged workers, and that s why i oppose this bill. first the bill eliminates and consolidates programs simply for the sake of elimination and consolidation. the population served by these programs often face daunting challenges in the job market. youth, older workers, farm workers, workers with disabilities, english language learners, veterans, low-income workers are among those who face the greatest barriers to employment. programs that serve these populations are the very programs targeted by the republicans. even worse, the bill eliminates the director requiring these workers be given priority of service. with limited money, hard to serve populations will be left out in the cold. and we have yet to hear any credible evidence that eliminating programs will save taxpayers money. we have yet to hear any credible evidence as these programs are duplicative. nor have we heard credible evidence that this approach will make the system work better. in fact, the general accounting office warned that this one-size-fits-all approach may make services less accessible to the many groups considered hard to serve. second, the bill restructures the work force system in a way that walks out key shareholders and leaves the system vulnerable to favoritism. the legislative legislation arbitrarily mandates work force increase business participation on the board from 51% to 67%. this will allow people and power to lock out key stakeholders, including labor, community-businessed organizations, community colleges, or people who work with youth or workers with disabilities. these stakeholders know how to get the training to the people they provide the voice for the very people who need training and the very people work people looking for work. it removes local control so local communities can t direct their work force systems. yet local communities working with local business workers and other organizations, they know best how to respond to their economic need. finally, the republican bill essentially turns funding into a block grant and freezes authorization levels for six years. we all know that this is a code word for cutting funding. that s what the republicans have been doing in the c.r. that s what the republicans have been doing in sequestration. the democrats have a different version. we agree that the current system is in need of significant reform. so don t believe the others who falsely say we want the status quo. the system should be improved and ways to maintain our nation s commitment to expand opportunities for all americans. we want to make job training programs more efficient, more effective. this can be accomplished by requiring unified plans that streamline and coordinate these services. democrats want to ensure that real accountability, everyone knows that these programs work and which programs don t work. finally, we want to promote the innovation of the work force systems by fully engaging community colleges. this can be done by ensuring that there are resources for community colleges to effectively respond to the economic challenges and to meet the future industrial need. this should be congress way forward to strengthen the work force investment system. congress should not be dismantling a system and leaving only those leaving those who need help the most in the back of the line. i m disappointed that we have reached this point on this very important topic. and for months democrats have extend add hand to work together with the republican majority. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. and the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: madam chair, i m very pleased now to yield he three minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, the chairman of the health subcommittee, dr. roe. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. roe: madam speaker, today there are more than 12 million americans who are out of work. these lives are on hold to the economy gets better. provide that we here in washington can stop ourselves from taxing, borrowing, spending, and regulating it into a stand still. even in this time of economic uncertainty, 3.6 million job openings in this country that remain unfilled. unbelievable when you have 12 million people out of work. i support the bill on the floor today, h.r. 803, the skills act, because it will help give some of our neighbors the sense of dignity and satisfaction only commoms from a hard day s work done well. this legislation will help bridge the gap between unemployment and work in three significant ways. first the skills act will ensure that workers can access job training programs immediately. eliminating the need to navigate a complicated bureaucracy by cutting through the red tape we can get workers trained and back into the work force more quickly. at the same time, this bill removes some of the burdens on state and local officials by repealing 19 mandates that impact who can serve on work force training boards. the entities that oversee local job training programs. second, the skills act will require state and local leaders to use common performance measures to measure the quality of services offered to workers. this will ensure that there is accountability and work force training programs ensuring a good return on taxpayer dollars. the bill also empowers job creators by requiring that 2/3 of the work force board members are from the business community. giving more say to the people who know the needs of their business and the local economy is just plain good common sense. finally the skills act will ensure that taxpayers are seeing a good return on investments by eliminating or streamlining 35 ineffective or duplicative federal programs. it also gives governors additional flexibility to further consolidate any additional employment and job training programs at the state and local level to ensure efficiency and cut waste. let me just, madam speaker, go through a few of these. you talk about duplicative programs. this will help consolidate some of the these are the names of the programs. reintegration of ex-offenders. grants to states for training for incarcerated individuals. second chance act prisoner re-entry incentives. it looks to me like we could have one program for all of these. let me read a few more. refugee and entrant assistance, refugee social services program, refugee entry systems targeted assistance. i could go on and on with 35 programs that when we hear our chairman speak one in five actually completes one of these programs. let me just tell you what happens in our state of tennessee. every tennessean is within one hour of a technological technology center. knees are all across our state. even in today s economy, with the economy being what it is and hard to find a job, 90% of these people get a job. are hired. right now today. not one in five. the chair: the gentleman s time has expired. mr. kline: i yield 30 seconds more. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. roe: i thank the chairman for yielding. i want to finish my saying there are things that work today out here. today that we can emulate. we need to streamline this. you should read all these i agree with the ranking member miller, we do need reform. that s what this is an attempt to do. i want to commend dr. foxx and chairman kleine for their leadership on this issue and i encourage my colleagues to support this bill. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. miller: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. hinojosa, the ranking member of the subcommittee on education and work force. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. . mr. hinojosa: madam speaker, i rise today to oppose h.r. 803, a fatally flawed and highly partisan bill that would weaken our nation s current public work force training and adult education system at a time when millions of americans continue to struggle to find good family sustaining jobs in our nation s economy. . simply put, h.r. 803 will take our nation in the wrong direction, making it more difficult for individuals with barriers to employment to receive the education and training services they need to get back on track. e skills act repeals and consolidates 35 w.i.a. programs, block granting critical programs that provide invaluable training to adults, youth, veterans, farm workers, dislocated workers and many others. this fatally flawed bill eliminates the priorities of service delivery for low-income adults and out-of-school youth despite the high levels of unemployment rates for youth of color and low-skilled workers. this fatally flawed legislation strikes state and local board representation for unions, community colleges and community-based organizations, moving away from some of the key tenants of w.i.a. it was set up so that 51% of the seats on that board of directors would be represented for the business community. and 49% for those who are no the employers and businesses, but those that i mentioned, and that type of diversity is very necessary, such as collaboration, inclusions, strategic partnerships, the work that needs to be done to improve people s lives. finally, this fatally flawed bill freezes program funding authorizing for fiscal years 2014 through 2020, and i must underscore that job training and re-employment services for i.a. have already been cut 50% since 2001. how can congress freeze funding for w.i.a. the next six years when we have millions of men and women year after year who need training? how can w.i.a. boards do their job if the inflation costs and the increase of operating costs like utilities, wages, insurance of properties and for health insurance continue to increase? for these reasons it is no surprise that at least 50 organizations strongly oppose our have concerns about this misguided legislation, including the u.s. conference of mayors, the national league of cities, the national council of la raza, the legal council of skills rights, the national skills association, the national farmer opportunity program, the consortium for people with disabilities, the afl-cio, the national coalition for literacy, the national youth employment and they go on and on. i ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to both against h.r. 803. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: i m pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman the gentlewoman, mrs. roby. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. mrs. roby: i am proud to support h.r. 803 which i am a co-sponsor. currently over 30 different agencies are involved in work force development or unemployment services. why? because washington loves creating a bureaucracy but rarely ever ends one. the skills act changes that by consolidating these myriad department into one fork worse development platform tasked with equipping employees the skills they need to land a good job. it gives states more authority to direct resources based on their individual needs. it empowers state work force development agencies to collaborate more with community colleges by removing bureaucratic red tape. in addition, it repeals 19 federal mandates that previously dictated who was even able to serve on these state work force boards. also, i m pleased that the legislation that we re debating today also reflects an amendment that i offered in the markup last week to strengthen the underlying bill. my colleagues accepted my amendment that prohibits any state or local agency from using federal work force funds authorized by the skills act to turn around and lobby for more funding or to engage in litcal activities. we can all agree that federal funds provided to state and local areas should be used to provide workers the training and support they need to find a job, especially when there are 12 million americans searching for work. work force development agencies need to be using precious federal resources to help their unemployed workers land jobs, not to lobby congress for more funds and certainly not to advance political beliefs. i am proud to vote in favor of h.r. 803. i encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill so we can streamline government spending, eliminate duplication and allow states to build more effective work force development programs. thank you, madam. i yield my time. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota reserves and the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. miller: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. without objection. mr. andrews: i thank my friend for giving me the time. it is a vecksing problem that at a time of vexing problem that at a time of high unemployment we have jobs unfilled in our country because we don t have sufficient training to fulfill these jobs. it s not a partisan problem. it s a commonsense problem. i believe it s a commonsense problem we could have solved if the parties had worked together here, but mr. miller and mr. hinojosa, mr. tierney and many others on our side reached out to negotiate a consensus on this bill and those negotiations never happened. i believe they should happen in the future and will have to in the future to give us a better work product. here s what i think is wrong about the bill before us today. we absolutely have to do a better job at training our own people to fill the jobs that are vacant in this economy. but if you leave that decision as to how to do that up to state politics in state capitols, i think the evidence is pretty clear that people get left out of that job training situation. let s take a worker who s worked in an oil refinery or factory and his or her job has been outsourced to another country. at the age of 50 or 55 they have to start all over again. if you leave the decision as to whether or not that worker gets training up to state politics, i think it s pretty likely that he or she won t get the training because people like that don t have a whole lot of clout in state legislatures, as far as i know. you have teenagers, 17, 18, 19 years old who dropped out of high schools for reasons of having a child or having some criminal problem. and they need to get back on their feet and back on the work force. they need a youth job training program. well, these are people who don t have lobbyists in the state legislature or much political clout in state capitols and they could be forgotten about. you have women that are the victims of domestic violence who nearly beaten to death by their husbands or their boyfriends and they need to get back in the work force so they can be self-supporting and self-sustaining for themselves and their children. but if you leave it to the state legislature, i m not sure that those citizens will get the job training that they need because they don t have a whole lot of clout in the state legislatures across our country. we should be sure that that displace worker has the funds to get the training for a new job. we should be sure that that enager who needs to be trained to lift himself or herself up has training for that new job. we should be sure that the person who s the victim of domestic violence has that kind of training that they need to lift themselves and their families up. the fundamental division here is whether we guarantee that funds will be available for the people i just described or whether we do not. the right thing to do is to negotiate those kinds of guarantees into this bill. when we do, when we do i believe that we will go forward with a bill that reforms and improves our job training system. let s not waste any more time. let s vote no but then start the negotiations today. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves and the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, madam chair. i am very pleased to yield two minutes to the i m sorry i yield three minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. goodlatte: thank you, madam chairman. i want to thank the gentleman from minnesota, the chairman of the education and work force committee, for his outstanding work on this. and i want to say to all of us, we should be sure that the people who are needing job training in this country are being trained and prepared for the jobs of the future, the jobs of opportunity, the jobs that are being created in the communities and whether they re a teenager or a woman who has been the victim of domestic violence or anyone else, they can be sure that with the kind of flexibility and creativity in this legislation they will have the best opportunity to be trained for those jobs. i want to thank the chairman, again, and say as we stand here today there are approximately 12 million americans without a job. 12 million. the numbers get worse the closer you look at them. over 40% of these americans have been unemployed for more than six months and the percentage of americans participating in the work force has recently fallen to under 64% which is the lowest number since 1981. the situation is even bleaker for america s youth who should be at the dawn of their careers. for people between the ages of 18 and 29, the unemployment rate is a shocking 12.5%. this is simply unconscionable. it is time for the congress and the president to address the high unemployment and the unsustainable debt that s shackling this country. the skills act is an important first step. this bill streamlines duplicative federal programs related to job training and reduces bureaucracy so that more funds and support can go to the people who need it and not to washington bureaucrats. specifically, the bill requires increased coordination among federal, state and local and tribal agencies to ensure that money is well spent, including on the federal re-entry programs that are focused on helping prisoners reintegrate back into society. and also within the judiciary committee s jurisdiction, the bill ensures that employment and training services for refugees are provided through the streamline system set up in the work force and investment act as opposed through several different systems. i d like to thank the gentleman from minnesota, again, for working with the judiciary committee on these provisions, and i support this commonsense legislation that seeks to solve a serious problem by making better use of the limited resources that we have, an approach that i hope can be applied more broadly. i commend the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx, as well as chairman kleine for their leadership on this issue chairman kline for their leadership on this issue and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. miller: i yield to mr. tierney two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. tierney: i thank you and thank the gentleman for yielding. we could have had a bipartisan bill and that seems to be the real shame here. this has been historically a bill that has not been hyperpartisan as the one that s before us today, one that the parties sat down together and came to the best solution on that but it didn t happen. the underlying bill arbitrarily eliminates and consolidates all the programs and collapses them into one. it tries to substitute that i guess for an analysis for how it should be done. it relies on the comments of the g.a.o. report that says some of the programs may have overlapped somewhat but did not reach to the conclusion that they were duplicative or didn t serve some populations. the majority sees that to collapse the programs together and freeze the funding for that. i would have had consideration of what programs ought to be sustained, make them justify how they are serving populations, determine whether or not there needs to be changes, whether some did need to be terminated or consolidated. that process has been avoided and ignored throughout. it s interesting to note that the administration is opposed not to this year s version but last year s version which was fairly identical and indicates it doesn t meet the administration s goals set out for training in this country. the underlying bill would dissolve youth training programs. i hear youth that are out of work. the underlying bill dissolves youth training programs and also has virtually no support amongst all the people that are really involved in work force development in this country. there was very little, if any, consideration of their views and their input into that despite the labor they put in and the policy decisions they help make day in and day out. the substitute has broad support. it did go out and listen to the stakeholders on that and it did get their opinions and incorporated them. that s why a bipartisan discussion amongst members would have benefited the bills on that. we have better accountability. t advocates to the governors to have responsibility where it deserves. thank you. the chair: the gentleman s time has expired. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, madam chair. i yield now two minutes to the gentleman from michigan, the chairman of the work force protection subcommittee, mr. walberg. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. walberg: i thank the chairman. madam speaker, our country s job training programs often stand sadly as a barrier between workers and the employers that want to hire them. in december, 2012, employers reported 3.6 million job openings all across our country despite 12 million americans searching for work. the challenge is is that today s job hunters are being frustrated increasingly by bureaucratic inefficiencies in getting the specific skills they need to fill many of these jobs. the skills act would reform the nation s work force development system and better equip job seekers with the abilities they need for today s economy. . it makes good sense that rereducing the size and scope of big government helps the industry and work force. h.r. 803 ensures that local employers are given more of a say in these programs. helping ensure that there are qualified and recognized for today s most in demand jobs. it also includes reforms that allow states to determine what standards will be required for providers. which will streamline the bureaucracy that has limited many work force development providers. such as community colleges, in their goal to succeed. my congressional district is fortunate enough to have a number of talented hardworking individuals and community colleges that are committed to helping reinvent michigan and its workers through these programs. it s time to give both workers and employers more ability in providing smart, commonsense solutions and tools to strengthen our work force and ut americans back to work. really isn t that the reason, madam speaker, that our government set in place to ensure the opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. by people who are assured that that liberty will allow them choices that only americans really can make. please join me in passing h.r. 803. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. miller: i yield three midgets to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. holt: madam chair, i thank the ranking member, my friend from california, and i rise in opposition to the skills act. an work force investment is important role that congress needs to do, and it could and should be done in a bipartisan way. the government has a role to play in setting standards to preserve fairness and to expand access. the so-called skills act seeks to combine and reduce vital programs. it takes 35 programs and identifies them for elimination and says the federal government will leave a bushel basketball full of money on the steps of each state capitol. this is an abbey days of our responsibility abbey scation -abdication of our responsibility to set standards. what some on the other side might call red tape or overregulation i would call standards to see that the work force investment programs really address the needs of individuals with disabilities or the needs of identical identifiable groups that deserve our help. that will provide good services for those who need the help most, not the easiest cases, say single parents whose daily struggles with food and housing and transportation and childcare make job training difficult. we had good ideas, the democrats. ideas that were similar to what went into the original work force investment act. ways to improve these programs and make them serve all of these americans. h.r. 803, for example, does not support library he resource centers. it ignores individuals with disabilities. and incumbent workers. the bill doesn t allow libraries to partner fully in the work force investment program. last year i introduced an amendment to authorize libraries to engage in statewide employment and training activity. no such this year. many low-wage workers, often single mothers struggling, need special help. my home state of new jersey has online learning for low-income workers. by creating grants for online learning such as laptops at home, we could provide many of these workers who have to stay at home and raise a family the opportunity to improve their skills and enter the new economy. yes, that should be in this program for the nation. the rehabilitation act is intended to aid individuals with disabilities. the amendments to the rehabilitation act in this bill before us today would reduce significantly the services for individuals with disabilities by eliminating programs and eliminating those dedicated funding streams. and saying instead, well, you can do it if you want to. incumbent workers do not get the help they need here. this act does nothing really to improve those people in low-level positions who have the opportunity with help to move upward. we need to work together to provide our nation s job seekers the resources and training they need. and we here in the federal government have a responsibility to set the standards to see that people of all sorts who need the help have the access. the chair: the gentleman s time has expired. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, madam chair. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from nevada, member of the committee, dr. heck. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. heck: thank you, madam chair. thank my colleague, ms. foxx, for bringing this bill to the floor. i was pleased to work with ms. foxx and mr. mckeon in the last congress on similar legislation. i enjoyed working with my colleagues in the committee on this bill. i rise in support of the skills act. back in my district the biggest concerns of my constituents are still jobs and the economy. southern nevada was hit hard by the recession due to our economy relying heavily on the travel and tourism industry and construction industry. we lost a lot of jobs in those sectors. unemployment is just under 10% in our state today. madam chair, the skills act is exactly what southern nevada needs to foster our recovery. our state is identifying and attracting new in demand industries that will come to nevada and create jobs and economic opportunity. now we need to train our workers to do these jobs. the jobs that do and will exist, not the jobs that did exist. the skills act will help us to do that because it strengthens the role of employers and work force development decisions by requiring 2/3 of the work force board members be local employers and focuses training on in-demand occupation. the skills act will also improve job training programs by eliminating and streamlining 35 ineffective and duplicative programs and creating a flexibility work force investment fund to serve as a single source of support for workers, employers, and job seekers. to think that our state and local elected leaders are not concerned with helping all of their unemployed, whether they be victims of domestic violence, veterans, those unable to complete high school, or the single mom is a slap in the face to those local he elected leaders elected by their constituents. finally, the skill act increases accountability and transparency for work force investment boards and their performance measures ensuring taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly. the skills act will certainly improve work force development efforts across the country, getting more nevadans and more americans connected with the jobs of today and the jobs of tomorrow not the jobs of yesterday. and i urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. million miller: i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from oregon, ms. bonamici. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. bonamici: thank you very much, madam speaker. thank you ranking member miller, for the yield. today i rise in opposition to the skills act. this partisan bill unfortunately takes a one-size-fits-all approach. freezing funding, eliminating programs that help veterans, the disabled. young workers and older americans find work. and ending the requirement that community colleges serve on work force investment boards. as a graduate of a community college i take that very seriously. this bill also fails to address the skills gap issue. when i m out in my district talking to businesses large and small, especially in the high-tech sector in oregon s silicon forest, they often say there are job openings but not enough qualified workers. there s a substitute bill, the work force investment act, sponsored by mr. miller, mr. hinojosa, and mr. tierney. unlike the substitute bill, the skills act doesn t include the wise investment act language that i authored to address this skills gap problem. the wise investment act helps connect the needs of small businesses and other stakeholders to training programs available through community colleges and elsewhere. it s time to set ideology aside and work together so the best ideas rise to the top. unfortunately this bill does the opposite. i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and let s start working together to get a bill that robs support. i urge my colleagues to support real work force reforms that we need that are bipartisan and address the skills gap issue as well as the other important issue that are included in the work force investment act, but unfortunately not in the partisan skills act. thank you very much, madam speaker. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. thea. california reserves. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: thank you again, madam chair. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from indiana, the chairman of the early childhood and elementary and secondary education subcommittee on the committee, mr. rokita. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. rokita: thank you, madam chair. i thank chairman kleine and representative foxx for their work and leadership on this bill. the work force investment act is long overdue for re-authorization, especially given the monumental changes to our economy over the past 10 years since the law was last authorized. there are many important reasons to do so, including cutting waste and improving he efishency, but the most important reason to me is the moral one. quite simply the existing maze of federal work force training programs is failing those who it is intended to be serving by trying to be all things to all people, the federal work force training program is serving no one well. that s a problem. the federal government s food print has gotten far too large and our national debt has grown with it. as a result of this failing to serve the work force of today and piling up ever larger bills for the children of tomorrow. people that don t even exist yet. what the skills act does is consolidate and eliminate many unnecessary and duplicative programs not simply for the sake of downsizing but improve the quality of work force training. that s what we should all be about. republican and democrat alike. business owners understand this. they understand the importance of streamlining and efishency. they understand the importance of getting a good return on their investment and they aren t getting that right now. we have to make sure the federal government abides by those same principles. in addition to consolidating existing programs, which the skills act does, it is important for us to make sure we are actually recovering savings and reducing the deficit as well. we can do both things at once, my friend. i am thankful for the opportunity to work with miss folks and the chairman to include an important provision that would take the next step and reduce the amount of employees at the department of labor in line with reducing the programs. the bill gives the director 60 days to identify how many full-time equivalent employees work for on or administer programs that have been eliminated or consolidated. the director would then have a year to reduce the federal government s work force by that same number. jobs that have the most value are jobs in the private sector. the productive sector. and the extent we need jobs in the public sector, they should be truly support and grow the private sector in a responsible way. quite simply, if the programs no longer exist, there is no reason for extra federal government bureaucrats. while many of these federal employees are no doubt very committed to their work, it is immoral for us to borrow more money from our children and grandchildren to pay for unnecessary expenses today. the department of labor may exist to serve our work force but it is not supposed to be a jobs program in and of itself. the legislation before us is a strong step in the right direction and will not only strengthen the federal government and reduce our debt but ensure that we are delivering better results for america s work force. by actually reducing the federal government employment role, we ll be restoring more local control and perhaps more importantly we ll be making smarter use of american tax dollars. so i encourage my colleagues to support this legislation for that. and also the performance measures included in this. one of my constituents, and a small business owner serves on one of the work force investment boards and he says these performance measures the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. rokita: he says these common performance measures are absolutely critical, even the simple difference of committing someone to a job for and measuring a performance in that for that job from six months to a year makes all the difference in how we really gauge whether or not these programs are successful. whether or not our economy is really growing. thank you very much, madam chair. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. miller: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from nevada, mr. horsford. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. horsford: thank you, madam speaker. thank you to the ranking member for his leadership and the committee members as well for working so hard to try to find a balanced approach in a bipartisan approach to a very important bill, which is job training and developing america s work force. the latest employment report for nevada came out this morning, and while we added 6,600 seasonally adjusted jobs and are on the right path, we cannot shortchange our workers at this critical time. . i heard from local officials who serve on work boards and they don t support h.r. 803 and that s why i strongly oppose the bill as well. before coming to congress, i ran a joint labor management training academy in las vegas that helped train thousands of nevadans, youth, adults and dislocated workers, to find careers in the hospitality industry each and every year. so i know the value of quality training for perspective workers. i m opposing the so-called skills act because it s a partisan bill that s dressed up as a work force investment act legislation. it would block grant 35 work youth over ting workers and workers with disabilities against each other. and it would freeze job training investment for seven years even though funding for work force programs have already been cut in half since 2001. this at a time when there s a growing demand for training and placement of workers. you know, the democratic alternative to this bill builds partnerships with the private sector, with labor, with community colleges. it evalue waits the efficiency of work force programs evaluates the efficiency of work force programs and it expands on-the-job training and incumbent worker training. now, i ll work with anyone from any party mr. miller: an additional one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. horsford: thank you. i will work with anyone from any party who has a good idea for how we can get the american people back to work. unfortunately, h.r. 803 is not that bill. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california reserves, and the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, again, madam chair. at this time i m very pleased and honored to yield one minute to the distinguished house majority leader, the gentleman from virginia, mr. cantor. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. cantor: thank you, madam chair. i want to thank the gentleman from minnesota, the chairman of the education and work force committee, for bringing this bill forward and his leadership on so many issues affecting working families across this country. madam chair, i rise this morning to speak in favor of the skills act. today, there are 20 million americans unemployed or underemployed, and i want to take a moment and speak about the individual that s looking for their next job and explain how the skills act will actually help them. first of all, the skills act streamlines the complicated maze of existing federal programs. rather than spending time figuring out which one of 30 different programs you re supposed to go to, this bill creates a one-stop shop and creates a one-stop work force investment fund. second, if you need job training, the skills act eliminates bureaucratic hurdles, such as first requiring you to work on your resume and develop an individual employment plan so that you can access the training that you need right away. third, by emphasizing the role of local employers on your local work force training board, the skills act helps ensure that the training you receive is related to the jobs actually available in your area. and finally, the skills act makes sure that you receive quality training by making it easier for community colleges and technical schools to actually participate in these work force training programs. what does all this mean? better, more accessible job training to help more people who are unemployed find jobs faster. yesterday, i had the opportunity to tour an automotive workshop at the northern virginia community college and saw firsthand the need to train skilled workers. i want to thank chairman kline who went with me to that community college, congresswoman virginia foxx, and congresswoman susan brooks for their leadership on this important issue. the skills act has been endorsed by numerous employers, community colleges and community college systems and a number of governors because they all recognize that a broken work force training system hurts those in need of assistance. we have a chance to fix that broken system with this bill, and i urge my colleagues to support the skills act and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota reserves, and the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. miller: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. butterfield: i want to thank the gentleman for yielding time and thank him for his leadership on the committee and what he s done for education in this country. madam speaker, never have job training and educational opportunities been so crucial for so many people as they are during this challenging economic time. our country s economic situation is getting better. last month we added 236,000 jobs, and the unemployment rate fell to 7.7%, the lowest rate in four years, but the unemployment rate in my home state of north carolina is 9.4%, and in my first district, one in four people are below the poverty level. the skills act, madam speaker, will stall our delicate economic recovery. at a time when we must invest in our work force to ensure hardworking people are able to access the training they need to achieve the american dream, the skills act skills work force development as we know it. it will turn 35 important work force development programs into a block grant system and force effective programs targeted to help disadvantaged populations to compete against each other for funding. the bill would subject work force development programs to partisan politics by putting funding in the hands of governors and would remove seats reserved for community interest groups and community colleges on local work force investment boards and instead leave the decision of where to invest the money in the hands of, who, big business. h.r. 803 would devastate the innovative partnerships the work force investment act has created in my district. the bill will jeopardize the partnership between the community college in kinston where students gain technical assistance in a career in aerospace. it will not help disadvantaged children in elizabeth city and a work force and training system which helps retrain dislocated workers in rocky mountain, north carolina. for these reasons, madam speaker, and more, i urge my colleagues to oppose h.r. 803 and support the democratic alternative. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves, and the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: madam chair, can i inquire as to the time remaining on each side? the chair: the gentleman from minnesota has 9 1/2 minutes remaining. and the gentleman from california has 8 3/4 minutes remaining. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, madam chair. i m pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from kentucky, a member of the committee, mr. guthrie. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. guthrie: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise today in support of the skills act. this legislation is a key tool to improve employee skills and in turn strengthen our nation s work force. jobs and growing our nation s economy must be our top priority. there has never been a more critical time to make sure that our work forces had a the opportunity to find new jobs or receive additional education. the bill includes a number of positive changes to the work force system, creating a flexible work force investment fund to give local work force boards additional funds is the first step in getting people through the work force system. it does away through the sequence of service which delays access to training. in addition, the bill enhances adult literacy, a call that s particularly important to me. today, approximately 12 million americans are without work. yet, jobs are opened in many industries, especially in manufacturing. when i travel around my district, i continue to hear employers are actively looking for workers but are finding difficulty in finding them. technology is ever advancing. we need to make sure they have the skill sets required for the tasks today and tomorrow. this bill will address for this head-on and have the education these people need. these high-skilled, high-demand jobs are the pathway to the american dream. i ve seen firsthand at my family s manufacturing facility how lives can be transformed through additional skills and investing in our work force. there are countless benefits to better educating our work force as our economy continues to rebuild from the recession. we must do everything we can to put americans back to work. i hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this effort and our nation s work force. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. and the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. miller: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. cicilline: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman from california for yielding. i rise today in strong opposition to the so-called skills act, h.r. 803, a bill that would fail to live up to our responsibility to job seekers, businesses and working men and women across our country. i served as mayor of the city of providence for eight years and saw closely what excellent work force boards do in my home state. right now we should be doing everything we can to put our nation back to work and offer assistance for folks who are struggling to find employment. but unfortunately this highly partisan bill does just the opposite. it would block grant and effectively eliminate 35 programs, including programs that help dislocated workers, veterans, disabled workers and other disadvantaged populations, putting these individuals at high risk of losing access to services. even though funding for the work force investment act has en cut in half since 2001, this radical proposal would freeze investments in job training and other work force investment services for seven years. mr. hinojosa, mr. miller and mr. tierney have offered a compromise alternative, a commonsense alternative that would create strategic partnerships with employers, community colleges, labor unions and nonprofits to find new jobs and careers for working families. the democratic alternative would expand the central role of community colleges, authorizing $8 billion for president obama s community college to career fund to help community colleges recognize credentials since students will graduate with job training that meets the needs of employers. it would also better serve high poverty services with effective services by creating innovation funds to expand the use of promising strategies for adults and young people. ladies and gentlemen, our country is facing serious economic challenges, and we need a serious solution like that offered in the work force investment act. i urge my colleagues to oppose h.r. 803 and support the democratic alternative and enact real work force reform that will put americans back to work. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman s time has expired. the gentleman from california reserves. and the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, madam chair. i see our last speaker hasn t arrived on the floor and don t know if he will, so in the interest of keeping this moving i ll reserve. the chair: so the gentleman from minnesota reserves, and the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. miller: i have no further speakers. do you want to yield i yield myself 30 seconds just to say the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. miller: i think it s clear from the speakers on the democratic side who spoke this morning is that it was really quite possible to have a bipartisan bill come to the floor of the house out of our committee. we offered to enter into member-to-member negotiations. that offer was not taken up. this bill was introduced one week in a hearing and reported the next, and the fact of the matter is i think there s a great desire on both sides of the aisle to make this a well-run, well-functioning program for the people who need it so they can get back into the work force in the american economy, but unfortunately that didn t happen and we re now left with a partisan bill much like we were last year and i think unfortunately it s going to make it very difficult to get a good job training bill to the president s desk for his signature and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. and the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, madam chair. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, madam chair. we believe that the skills act is genuine, commonsense reform addressing a real problem that our nation has faced for years. the last this authorization expired in 2003, and so under republicans and democrats we ve en unable to get legislation passed in the law, through the committee, through the house and move it forward. there have been all sorts of reasons for this. sometimes it was just recognized as it s too hard, but in any case we haven t been able to move it and that includes frankly under four years when the other side had the majority, chaired this committee and in fact had a majority in the house and the senate and the white house and weren t able to move legislation forward. so i appreciate the calls for bipartisanship. i m not entirely sure why walking out of a markup engenders further bipartisan support. nevertheless, that s what we re faced with. this legislation was thoughtfully developed after the committee convened multiple hearings over the last three years, examined the testimonies of dozens of witnesses, including governors and state and local work force investment leaders. this ongoing debate has been open and fair. . when we had this bill in the committee last year, amendments were offered by republicans and democrats, amendments passed as offered by republicans and democrats. we have to move this legislation forward. we can no longer afford the failed status quo that wastes taxpayer dollars and prevents people from getting the skills they need, to get the jobs that are available today. the skills act will strengthen the work force training system, make our nation more competitive in the 21st century, and help put americans back to work. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on h.r. 803. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, this bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on education and the work force printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text or rules committee print 113-4. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those in house report 113-16, each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 113-16. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: thank you, madam chairman. i rise in support of the manager s amendment for h.r. the chair: does the gentlelady have ms. foxx: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1, printed in house report number 113-16, offered by ms. foxx of north carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 113, the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam chair. i rise in support of the manager s amendment for h.r. 803, the supporting knowledge and investment in lifelong skills act, and i i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam chair. the issue before us can no longer be ignored. last week we received encouraging news as the nation s unemployment rate dropped to 7.7%. the reality remains that millions of americans are still searching for work and too often they cannot get the support they need to compete for in demand jobs. each year hardworking taxpayers spend $18 billion to fund more than 50 federal work force development programs administered by nine different agencies. many of the programs overlap or are duplicative and few have ever been evaluated for efficacy. our nation s economy is only as strong as its work force. right now the need to reform our broken work force development system could not be more critical. as friday s job report illustrated, 12 million americans are still searching for full-time work, yet employers reported another month with more than three million unfilled job openings. in part because there aren t enough qualified workers to fill them. we know that the jumbled state of today s work force development system is unmanageable and the ineffective maze of programs each of today s workers has to navigate in order to receive assistance or education to help in their job hunt. i have a chart that shows this. americans deserve a system that is more efficient, more accountable, and more responsive than that. and what we propose today will take care of that. today many of my colleagues, this is the chart that shows where we will go with this system. today many of my colleagues have discussed how the skills act which foster an employer driven system that prepares job seekers for a successful career in the 21st century economy. i d like to highlight a few technical changes included in the manager s amendment that will enhance efforts to he eliminate waste, safeguard taxpayer dollars, and provide education and support to american workers. first the manager s amendment will improve accountability and ensure officials aren t wasting taxpayer dollars by requiring the government accountability office to evaluate the administrative savings that will occur at the federal and state levels due to the streamlining of work force development programs. second we recognize that local leaders are much better informed and equipped to serve the needs of local job seekers than we are in washington. that is why our approach relies on a bottom up approach when designated local work force investment areas. local leaders will submit applications for designation and establish the processes needed to align their areas with other service delivery and labor market areas and their region. in doing so, the designation process will be more effective and transparent and will naturally serve the priorities of local communities. finally, when serving individuals with disabilities, the manager s amendment requires state and local work force development leaders to detail how they will focus on employment opportunities that foster independence and intera gration. these commonsense changes can help integration. these commonsense changes can help provide maximum support for workers and employers. in the 2012 state of the union address, president obama urged congress to cut through the maze of confusing training programs. today we have the opportunity to do just that. we cannot encourage economic growth or put americans back to work without reforming an anti-waited antiquated system that fails to meet the needs of today s job creators and workers. we cannot continue to defend the outdated policies of the past. it s time we reform these programs to create an efficient and effective system that supports the true backbone of our economy, the american people. madam chairman, i strongly urge my colleagues to support the skills act and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. tierney: i understand much of the manager s amendment is technical in clarifying corrections, but it does make one notable substantive change to the underlying bill that pertains to the designation of the local work force investment areas. current law calls for automatic designation of local work force areas with populations of 500,000 or more. it also ensures that the voices of local elected officials, businesses, work force development officials, among others, are heard. that s a good thing. now the underlying bill, the so-called skills act, radically changed this. it repealed the automatic designation that i just mentioned, and essentially empowereded governor to designate an entire state as one local area if that governor chose to do so. this is not viewed as sound polcy. two days ago the conference of mayors, national association of counties, the national league of cities, and the national american association of work force boards sent a letter to the house leadership that expressed concerns with this particular provision. specifically they wrote, and i quote, h.r. 803 undermines existing structures by virtually eliminating the input of local elected officials in the decisionmaking process. they also said, i quote, h.r. 803 fails to promote intergovernmental collaboration between state and local officials by eliminating prior provisions relating to automatic designation of local work force development areas, effectively allowing state boards to designate local areas in consultation with the governor without considering input from local stakeholders. now, i think the stake has been recognized and we can see this by this manager s amendment where there is an attempt to address the situation, but there is further evidence of the deficiencies of a hyper partisan bill that neglects the opportunity to sit down with others and work through these issues so we can come up with the best solution on that. they are trying to get out of this hole that s created by prohing a solution that s still inadequate and certainly is worse than current law. the manager s amendment provides an application process for the local board. so instead of being automatically designated, if there is 500,000 population or more, they have to apply to be designated a local work force area. that application still has to be approved by the state which could totally reject it. that s only for a period of three years. so they have to keep going through this process periodically. if i were a mayor or businessperson who is chairing a local board, i don t think i would be very pleased with this provision. i m not sure how creating an unnecessary and bureaucratic process where locals would have to reapply continuously for designation every three years squares with the republican colleagues supposed concerns about duplication in the work force. later this morning we ll be offering a substitute amendment that retains current law and protects the local individual s role in the work force system. certainly we have the opportunity for a bipartisan bill, we could have worked through this issue and come up with what would be the best solution. this is just one example of the important policy provisions in this bill that could have been addressed in that way. this could have been a bipartisan bill. we could have got the best product and didn t. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam chairman. i appreciate my colleague reading the letter that he read, but as he well knows that letter was written before the manager s amendment came out. and the manager s amendment actually corrects what the letter was talking about. we are making this system better. current law allows the governor of the state to designate local areas in consultation. and our colleagues are advocating to keep the status quo. my amendment makes it a better situation. and i appreciate his acknowledging that the manager s amendment does do that. i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. tierney: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. tierney: this is an attempt to deal with the problem that was in the underlying bill as pointed out by that letter, but an attempt that mirrors the process for the last session and this session. they didn t talk to anybody, they didn t say what would be the solution. they went out and arbitrarily decided, again, having once messed up they thought they were the repository for all knowledge on this subject and went about setting on a course that still falls short. yes current law allows for governors to work with the consultation of others in setting designated areas. but areas of 500,000 population or not are already designated. that s the point at issue here. i think we have seen an example of the process just deciding that all knowledge deposited in one section, not wanting to discuss with others. understand this could have been a good bill. this could have been a bill that went through the house, was taken up by the senate, and went on to the president s desk. a bill the public could have been proud of. a bill everybody could have got behind. we didn t. we see a failed process so we end up with failed part of the provision of the original bill and other failed attempt to fix it because there is no reaching out and no attempting it. last time we had some hearings very brief. we had a vote where partisan votes went all the way down the line. this time we have one here, two out of three witnesses say they didn t read the bill. an immediate markup where chose not to go through the same full hearing process of having all of the amendments shot down in the partisan vote. we are here, we always have been here. we want to work this through. this is not a hyper partisan issue. thank you. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady has 30 seconds left. and the gentleman from massachusetts has 15 seconds left. ms. foxx: a failed process is when you re in control the house, senate, and the presidency and you do nothing to fix the situation. we offered our colleagues on the other side of the aisle the opportunity to offer amendments. they walked out of the meeting. their substitute does not fix this situation in the way that they say that they want it fixed. madam chairman, we have allowed them to offer amendments. they walked away. we have given them extra time today to discuss their substitute, even their substitute does not take care of the problem. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman is recognized for 15 seconds. mr. tierney: no normal person would confuse the aspect of being given an opportunity to have your amendment shot down on a party-line vote as a bipartisan process. i remind the gentlewoman it was her party, mr. mckeon, who correctly stated this, the majority s obligation to reach across the aisle and seek compromise on that because they are the ones with the gavel on that. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from north carolina. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the aye vs. it. the amendment is a ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 113-16. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2, printed in house report number 113-16, offered by mr. gallego of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 113, the gentleman from texas, mr. gallego, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. gallego: thank you, madam chair. i would like to thank chairman kleine and the ranking member for their work as well as for consideration of my amendment today. my amendment is very simple and commonsense. it accelerates job training skills for veterans. specifically the amendment would promote advanced manufacturing within state and local plans for veterans. assisting veterans and employers can translating their military skills into advanced manufacturing does two things. first, it addresses 600,000 advanced manufacturing jobs that remain open in our nation. and more than 82% of manufacturers report that they cannot find people to fill their skilled jobs. . over the next four years, one million veterans are expected to exit the armed forces and transition into our work force. this amendment creates cohesion between filling our advanced manufacturing jobs, such aztec nothing, air owe such as technology, aerospace with capable, talented veterans. there are close to 900 veterans who are unemployed in our nation, and often these veterans obtained advanced manufacturing skills while serving our country but unfortunately they have a hard time obtaining employment once they leave their service. although unemployment for veterans has fallen from 12.1% to 9.9% in the last year, it still outpaces the nation s overall rate, and today there s more than 1.6 million veterans who live in my home state of texas, and in the reaches of live st texas, some there. a sector that s added 500,000 jobs in the past 26 months, technology. this doesn t present budgetary issues. there are no cut-go violations. it doesn t impact discretionary authorizations. i d ask your support of a very commonsense amendment. let s work together to get our veterans back to work. thank you, madam chair. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: madam chair, i rise to claim the time in optician but i do not intend to owe in opposition but i do not intend to oppose. the chair: the gentleman is recognized in opposition. kleine chine thank you, madam chair. i appreciate the involvement of the mr. kline: thank you, madam chair. i appreciate the involvement of the gentleman from texas. it would translate veterans skills to civilian use in an important and growing sector. a focus on advanced manufacturing training will allow our veterans to get training while increasing their earnings potential. so we support this amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 113-13 16 sorry. for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska seek recognition? mr. young: madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 113-16, offered by mr. young of alaska. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 113, the gentleman from alaska, mr. young, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: madam chairman, i rise today to an an amendment to offer an amendment. h.r. 803, as reported, contains a provision which establishes a 1% cap on the amount that each state can designate for native employment and training grants out of the total funding allotment. my amendment would instead require that each state provide exactly 1% for each program. this change is important because h.r. 803 as currently stands gives states dramatically reduce or eliminate native work training fund. alaskan native, american indian and native hawaii have high unemployment rate. since 1998, american native people have relied crucially on funding from the work force investment act to provide the necessary resources to educate their work force and help reverse these trends. my amendment would guarantee the tribal funding continues. i urge a yes vote on the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. tierney: madam chair, i rise to claim time in opposition but will not. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. tierney: i reserve time but i do note in the gentleman, mr. young s letter regarding this matter, he notes that the underlying bill does not accommodate the needs of this particular population and that s why the necessity existed for him to bring this amendment that we support to the floor but it s another example of how the process should have improved this bill all along had it been done in a bipartisan consultative manner as we all hoped it would be. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from alaska is recognized. mr. young: madam chair, at this time i yield to mr. cole from oklahoma one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cole: i thank the speaker and i thank the gentleman. i want to thank my good friend, mr. young, for bringing this amendment. nobody has fought harder or worked longer for native people in this chamber than my good friend from alaska. and the fact we would guarantee this i think is important recognition of how difficult the circumstances are for much of the native population in the country. the bureau of labor statistics does not actually keep statistics on native american unemployment. but anybody that s ever been to a reservation knows that we have plenty of them in the middle of states with very low unemployment rates where the unemployment rate on a reservation will be 75% or more. so again i want to thank my friend for making sure that important resources are directed toward an often neglected population. i want to thank him for his many years of work in this area and look forward to working with him as we move forward. so with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from alaska reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. tierney: madam chairman, i give myself 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. tierney: i just further make the point that obviously there are certain populations within our society that deserve particular attention because they have unique needs. you don t accomplish that by arbitrarily taking all the programs and lumping them together without a full analysis and determination of which ones would be better served in that basis and which ones wouldn t. i think it further establishes our further point that was made throughout. i congratulate the gentleman s amendment and support it fully and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from alaska is recognized. mr. young: at this time i d like to yield a minute, minute and a half from my good friend from south dakota. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. noem: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for his work on this important issue. you know, we face some specific challenges in indian country in south dakota. this amendment ensures that 1% of the funds within the work force investment fund would be dedicated towards meeting those needs. madam speaker, the three most impoverished counties in the nation are located in south dakota. each of these counties are located on on near reservations and the poverty rate in these counties hovers around 50%. life in indian country certainly has its challenges and among those is chronically high unemployment. while some of our tribes face an unemployment rate of around 0%, we have one of them, the rosebud reservation near todd county which face almost 80% unemployment. again, this is challenging for indian country and needs to be dealt with. it is clear we must do better for indian country and jobs that s guarantees set-aside money for native american will make sure it s available for them. i toward lakota foods which makes some of the world s best popcorn. they have 12 full-time and part-time employees right now. with the right training they can employ around 50 people. also, there s a similar success story in pine ridge where native american natural foods produces tonka bars which is made out of buffalo meat and cranberries. it has caught on and are sold in over 3,000 stores now nationwide. with the right training and work force development, they could expand over 20 pulltime employees. we need to ensure that full-time employees. we need to ensure that this is helped. i urge support on this amendment. thank you. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. tierney: i ask unanimous consent to reclaim some of our time. the chair: without objection. mr. tierney: with that point, our member having arrived, i d yield to representative gab rder gabbard. ms. gabbard: i want to thank you for offering this very important amendment. he hawaii members have had a long relationship and look forward to that relationship. each state will provide 1% of their total allotment for native grants. it is capped at 1% which could result in funding reduction or no funding at all. with this amendment we can ensure our native populations are guaranteed at least 1%. this is a critical provision to ensure that our native populations are not forgotten or left behind. in my home state of hawaii, for example, one is able to take critical work force investment funds and help native hawaiians as well as alaskan natives and native american indians advance their academic or occupational skills and put them on a path to personal and economic self-sufficiency. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman yields back and the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: madam chair, i urge a yes vote. this amendment solves some problems. i d like to address the issue of training. we ve been very fortunate in alaska. we ve used these dollars for training for our alaskan natives successfully. we have aircraft training programs, carpenter training programs. we re training a group of alaskan natives to do the jobs that they can do not only in their tribal areas but in the state itself. the reservation mr. cole mentioned, we still have that high rate and i hope we understand and i am going to seek a new empowerment act for the american indians to make sure they don t have that high rate through training, utilization of their land for their benefit for theirselves so in fact we can continue and raise their standard instead of keeping 80% unemployment. so again i urge a yes vote and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alaska. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in house report 113-16. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from tennessee seek recognition? mrs. black: thank you, madam chairman. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 113-16 offered by mrs. black of tennessee. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 113, the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. black, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from tennessee. mrs. black: thank you, madam chairman. i d rise today in the support of reaffirming our commitment to upward mobility and greater opportunity for all americans. my amendment would express the sentiment of the house that the funding for the united states department of agriculture, usda marketing and outreach program currently used in participation in supplemental nutrition assistance programs, snap, better known as food stamps, would instead be used to fund job training programs contained in the skills act. these precious taxpayer dollars should be used to facilitate upward mobility and employment, not dependence. the usda created an aggressive outreach program that has grown under the obama administration, particularly through the president s stimulus package. these expanded initiatives include the collaboration between the usda and the mexican government officials to promote participation in targeted communities which teaches recruiters how to convince working class families into dependence. the obama administration has conducted over 30 meetings with the mexican government personnel since he took office. since this program began in 2004, the united states taxpayer has funded this participation with the mexican government to promote the snap program by holding 29 health fairs and traveling to 19 cities. the usda in coordination with the mexican government has conducted an aggressive campaign issuing guidance to state and local agencies with a record 91 meetings focusing on growing the outreach program to expand enrollment in snap. and none of these meetings were needed to point them in the direction of job training programs or employment searches that would offer much greater opportunity than whatever the federal government would have to offer. i recently read through this 55-page document put out by the usda entitled snap, guidance on noncitizen eligibility that essentially explains every possible scenario for avenues of going about receiving snap assistance. these policies are in plain conflict with our financial health of the united states and it fails to recognize that welfare reform is guided by a moral principle, that good policy helps people with better lives. usda has also used these outreach dollars to, quote, hunger champions, awarded in 2011 to certain workers which translated to a 10% increase in food stamp recipients in just one year. under the obama administration, the number of food stamp recipients has jumped 46% with one in six americans living in poverty and the administration still continues to undermine work requirements and effective job training. we need to reaffirm our belief that we are a nation of opportunity and not dependence. the government should not be promoting food stamps. the government should be used hard-earned taxpayer dollars to help those out of work to acquire skills they want and to achieve the american dream that they have for them and their families. i would now like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman that is the chairman of the agriculture, mr. lucas. . mr. lucas: thank you, madam speaker. i appreciate the gentlelady from tennessee s attempt at reform here. in fact, the farm bill passed bay the agriculture committee-by the agriculture committee last congress accomplished the goal of her amendment by preventing usda from mow moating the snap program. our goal in congress should not be getting more people on the snap rolls. instead we should be providing opportunities for increased economic growth in programs that facilitate upward movement, upward mobility to get people off the rolls. i pledge to work with the gentlelady to include language in the farm bill we intend to bring to the floor later this year to accomplish her goals. i thank her for her efforts. mrs. black: thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. i so appreciate your earnestness in helping to work together in making sure that we do have upper mobility rather than dependence. with that i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does does anyone seek recognition? the gentlelady is recognized. from tennessee. mrs. black: i want to thank the chairman for being willing to work with me on what i think is a very, very important issue of making sure that we help people with upward mobility. i ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. the chair: without objection. the amendment is withdrawn. mrs. black: thank you. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in house report 113-16. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. gar rhett: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5, printed in house report number 113-16, offered by mr. garrett of new jersey. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 113, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: thank you. i appreciate the thank the chair for recognizing me. i also thank the chairman as well. and also i want to thank the gentlelady from north carolina, i m not sure if she s here right now, for her efforts to make necessary and meaningful changes in reforms to the skills act. but the federal government spends literally billions and billions of dollars on work force training programs every single year. but there was a study that was done in 2011. that was done by the g.a.o. the government accountability office. and they found that very little is actually known about the effectiveness of a lot of these programs. so when we are here at a time of constrained spending and constrained budgets, we have to do everything we can from both sides of the aisle to ensure that taxpayers dollars are spent wisely and that the recipients of these dollars or the programs actually get an effective program at the end of the day. so the skills act that s before us now includes provisions mandating, this is good, meaningful evaluations of these very same programs. but simply mandating that evaluations be done doesn t really guarantee that they will actually be conducted. for example, back in 1998 there was the work force investment act legislation, and it mandated that the department of labor conduct what they called then the gold standard, if you will, of studies, job training programs, and require that those studies be done by 2005. but here as we stand here now in 2013, those studies still aren t done. i i even checked into it and they say it will not be completed until 2015, that s 10 years later than the studies were supposed to be completed. congress can no longer tolerate the negligent of report deadlines. especially concerning the effectiveness of federal programs that cost us billions of dollars. and when they are not being done effectively, the people who should be getting the effective programs are not getting the services. my amendment simply provides a incentive to the department of labor to conduct these aol vations evaluations on time and the authorizing committees can have the information to do their job as well. it is neither the taxpayer nor the job seeker any good at all that congress is funding something that s ineffective. this amendment will put something executive branch on notice. congress is keeping an eye on their performance and the authorizing committees can also have more information to do their jobs. with that i urge support of this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. hinojosa: i stand up in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hinojosa: i would like to yield two minutes to the the gentlewoman from texas, sheila jackson lee. the chair: the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i thank the distinguished ranking member of this committee. i thank the floor managers. i particularly thank mr. hinojosa for long service on work force issues, but higher education issues. to the proponent of the amendment. certainly we know that reporting is important. t what i want to focus on, madam chairwoman, is to focus on what america is all about. we are the land of opportunity and dreams. we are the richest country in the world. and our benefit and our successes come because we have invested in people. and we watch the depression and the era of world war ii and our soldiers coming home, prosperity began when we gave them the g.i. bill. and here we are today trying to undermine under h.r. 803 the very opportunity in states for those people still seeking to climb the ladder. by block granting these 35 programs, shifting to our state governments individual programs that serve our adults, youth, and farm workers, and dislocated workers, we are going down a road of no return. we are eliminating the priority of service delivery for low-income adults and out-of-school youth. we are eliminating the thought process that is are necessary to know what rural neighborhoods or communities and urban communities need. texas is one of the largest states in the union and i can assure you that eliminating separate training funds for youth programs is devastating. it was devastating when we lost the summer youth job program which i always said is a more effective program if you joined it with training. and in our local communities that s what we did. we joined summer youth jobs with training. now you re telling us that we will be eliminated from doing that. rather than suggesting that the problems of this deficit is always on the least, it would look for us to be able to chronicle while we got here billions of dollars in the iraq war, the afghanistan war, medicare part d of the bailout. and so it is important mr. hinojosa: i yield an additional 20 seconds. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for 20 seconds. ms. jackson lee: it is important to support i thank the gentleman. it is important to support the democratic alternative. which streamlines and improves coordination of training programs, which puts the dollars in community associations who are there on the ground. madam speaker, america is not good with this bill, h.r. 803. but it is good with the democratic alternative that invests in people and makes america great. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman s time has expired. the gentleman reserves. p new jersey from is recognized. mr. garrett: thank you. i begin by saying i associate myself with the words of the gentlelady over there that we should not put the burden on the least in this country. that s why we support this legislation before us and this amendment. i yield now 20 seconds to the chairman of the committee. mr. kline: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i thank you for bringing forward this really solid amendment. we know that under republican administrations, democrat administrations departments are required by law to submit all kinds of reports, but there are no consequences. so they don t do it. we have to do our job in the dark. i appreciate him recognizing the shortfall and taking this step. i support the amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. garrett: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hinojosa: we oppose the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. garrett: again i thank the chair. i just want to reiterate that we are on the exact same page with our colleagues from the other side of the aisle. that we understand the burdens that the americans across this country are suffering right now. we understand that the burden and the cuts that we are we may have to consider going forward in this country should not fall on the least among us. they should not fall on those who are without jobs. they should not fall for those who are struggling on the bottom trying to get up to the middle class and higher rung after that. we have to work together to make sure they do not suffer like that. that s why we have this amendment. to make sure that every single dollar we pass in this congress, every single penny we spend on a program an effective dollar, effective penny to get the job done. to let them rise up out of the depths of despair they are in to a higher level. we want to make sure we have effective programs. that s exactly what our amendment would do. i encourage both sides of the aisle to join the support of this legislation. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in house report 113-16. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. tierney: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6, printed in house report number 113-16, offered by mr. tierney of massachusetts. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 113, the gentleman from mass marks mr. tierney, and a member opposed each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: i yield myself three minutes. the chair: without objection. mr. tierney: i thank you. this amendment is offered in its entirety as a substitute for the underlying bill in the manager s amendment to it. i do it because i strongly believe that this is in fact a better proposal than the existing one, but would have preferred what could have been the best result on this bill which would have been one where all the members had consultation and all the negotiations occurred and we were able to bring forth a bill with concessions by both sides to get a bill that would have been assured of passage in the senate or close to that, assured of the president s signature, and assured the support of the broad public. just as last session we end up with a proposal that ignores sound proposal from both sides and goes with a hyper partisan approach and that s not going to serve the country or this process at all. having a chance to present 18 amendments as done in the last session, to have them all shot down on a party-line vote is not an excuse or substitute for having a process where we try to work out our difference answer make reasonable concessions. this bill that s before us today by the majority party was filed on february 25. a so-called hearing occurred on february 26, the very next day, where two of the three republican witnesses admitted they never read the bill. instead this bill proceeded forward with arbitrary consolidation or elimination of the programs that exist right now without any evaluation of their efficacy, effectiveness, whether or not they want to be consolidated or changed or terminated or kept intact as they are. reliance is made on the g.a.o. report that did not say anything about consolidating. all it said was some of the programs duplicate some aspects. and that only five programs had a full evaluation which would have begged the question for more hearings, a thorough evaluation, data, more consultation with people involved and stakeholders to come to a conclusion of just how and if consolidation should happen. we have seen from some of the amendments made today by members of the majority they thought some of the populations should have got more attention than the base bill gives them. essentially here we have a policy dictated not by washington in the underlying bill but advocated to governors so instead of being accountable for the decision we make, who we think the job training in this country, the national needs, the republican bill would abdicate that to governors. they could decide to serve or not serve entire populations and afford them the opportunity to get the training we believe as legislators they need. this bill as amended by the manager s amendment creates a one-size-fits-all. it eliminates separate training funds for youth. it silences the voices of community colleges, labor, economic development groups, community-based organizations. it eliminates support and employment programs like the disabled veterans outreach program. it eliminates the priority of service delivery for low-income adults and out-of-school youth. perhaps that s why so many groups have expressed serious concern about this underlying bill. groups like the united states conference of mayors, national association of counties, national league of cities, national association of work force boards. corporate voices for skilled work force. good will industries, and so many others have expressed concern for this underlying bill or expressed approval for the substitute that we offer. it s why the administration has filed a statement opposing this bill just as it did last year, saying it doesn t meet the administration s goals in urging the republicans to work with us to make a better bill on that. mr. chairman, we could have had the best of all alternatives. we could have had a good bill for the american people. we could have had a bill that took the best aspects of all proposals and put them together with consultation and blend that for approval of this house. and then passage by the president and support of the american people. unfortunately that process was not followed. the arbitrary process was endured by all of us on that part. i ask that the members support the substitute as being better than the underlying bill and hopefully we can get back to getting the best bill which is one done by collaboration and cooperation. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? mr. kline: i rise to came the limetime in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes. mr. kline: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. despite the extraordinary mis characteristics miscarkization of the bill and pretty amazing strawmen that have been put forward today, let s look at what we really have here. this is the situation that we ve got today. . this myriad of programs, i would call bureaucracy run amok, i might call it red tape, it is confusing at best. and this is what the president had to say about it. he said it s a maze of confusing training programs. he said that last year. i thought he meant it. i m not sure about his statement today, maybe he s changed his mind. but he called it a maze. so, what are we going to do about this maze, this red tape, this bureaucracy? we recommend simplifying it, making it easier to use, helping people get the training they need, not the bureaucracy for them to wade through. so, we took the information from the general accountability office, we looked at the statements coming from the administration and departments, we looked at programs that even the administration had recommended to stop funding and we said, let s make this simpler. let s make this easier. let s let the local work force boards who know their communities, with the employers in their communities, make it easier for people to get work and we put together a bill that has one work force investment fund. not a maze, not confusing, less red tape, easier to use, something that the people who need work can use so that you don t have less than one in five who show up to that maze actually get the training they need. and what have the democrats proposed? well, let s take a look at that. they took the current system and they boldly eliminated one program that hasn t been funded since 2003 and they added six more. i don t see how that helps us get where we need to go. i don t see how that helps get the millions of unemployed back to work. i don t see how that helps employers who have 3.6 million openings get those jobs filled. we need action here. that s what we believe our bill does. this is what their bill does. i recommend that we support the skills act and reject this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. thank you. at this time i d like to yield three minutes to the gentleman . om texas i rise in support of this bill because the congress has a responsibility to modernize this nation s public work force training and adult educational system. putting america back to work must be a top priority for congress and the nation. this tierney-hinojosa-miller amendment would bolster the role of community colleges in job training by authorizing president obama s $8 billion community college to career fund. mr. hinojosa: it would develop a 21st century system for adult education literacy and workplace services, it would engage our nation s youth through multiple pathways to success. it would create competitive employment services and opportunities for individuals with disabilities and, yes, it would improve accountability and transparency through performance measures and republicanning. importantly the democratic substitute bill would strengthen rather than eliminate the priority for low-skilled and low-income adults under w.i.a. mr. speaker, today our current public work force and adult education system provides an invaluable range of services, including education, occupational skills training, career counseling, job search assistance, adult education and english language literacy and civics education and, yes, it provides job placement services to populations with unique barriers to employment. these populations include migrant and seasonal farm workers, native americans, people with disabilities, veterans, older workers, people who are homeless, low-income youth, low-skilled workers, english learners, ex-offenders and women seeking nontraditional employment opportunities. in the 12-month period ending september 30, 2012, we w.i.a. programs provided services to 38.8 million people as well as hundreds of thousands of employers across the country, according to the u.s. department of labor. while our current w.i.a. system is providing much-needed education in training and re-employment services, the tierney-hinojosa-miller amendment would modernize our current w.i.a. system. it would prepare greater numbers of unemployed and underemployed americans for jobs in health care, advanced manufacturing and in high-growth high-growth industries and sects that are require specialized skills for these sectors that require specialized skills for these positions and it would ensure our most vulnerable populations are served. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in voting for the amendment in the nature of a substitute and do what is right for the millions of unemployed individuals. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman s time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. he gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you. i yield to ms. foxx. the chair: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized for three minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the chair of the education committee for his leadership and i want to give special thanks to the staff for their hard work on this bill. they ve done phenomenal work. mr. chair, i am also opposed to this substitute amendment. this amendment blatantly ignores the president s call to, quote, cut through the confusing maze of training programs, end quote, by creating a number of new redundant programs in addition to the 50-plus programs already in existence. the amendment re-authorizes programs that president obama eliminated in his f.y. 2013 budget proposal and funds programs that have not been funded in years. unfortunately this substitute amendment gives priorities to bureaucrats instead of un- and underemployed americans who are hurting. more than 20 million americans are struggling to find work and turn to their government for answers and assistance. this amendment adds to the confusion of the dizzying maze of existing programs. we should be streamlining our nation s work force development system, not making it more complicated for workers and job seekers. this week several of the north carolina work force administrators were in town and shared with me their frustration in filling local work force boards with members washington mandates rather than the partners who they know understand the needs of their local community and work force. this proposal does nothing to address these federal mandates and instead adds to the burden by mandating that 20% of board members be big labor. this is unacceptable. state and local leaders should be deciding who is best equipped to meet the needs of their communities. finally, the amendment dramatically increases the amount of hard-earned taxpayer dollars spent on administrative costs rather than direct services. our nation s debt will reach $17 trillion very soon and taking more money from hardworking taxpayers to spend on bureaucrats is unconscionable. the democrat proposal asks us to double down on the status quo that is failing our country in this time of high unemployment and record debt. mr. chair, the numbers tell the story. 12 million unemployed, eight million working part time who want to work full time, 3.6 million jobs unfailed unfilled. obviously the current system is broken. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support the skills act. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back her time. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: thank you, mr. chairman. at this time i yield three minutes to the minority whip, a member from maryland, mr. hoyer. the chair: the gentleman from maryland, the minority whip, is recognized for three minutes, that is the balance of the gentleman from massachusetts time. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. and i rise in support of his substitute. and in opposition to the so-called skills act. mr. chairman, there was an opportunity to do this in a bipartisan fashion. as we so often do, unfortunately, in this body, we choose to do it in a partisan fashion. which almost predictably will mean its defeat. this bill is a partisan-sponsored version that is opposed by most stakeholders, including the national skills coalition, it s a partisan bill because unfortunately republicans refuse democrats request to negotiate a bipartisan version. we need a bill like the democratic alternative introduced by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. tierney, who wrote a bill that enhances career pathways into training programs for advanced manufacturing and other industries. our alternative would work to finance enhance, excuse me, partnerships with industry, maintain a role for all stakeholders in work force investment and protect services for those facing significant barriers to finding work. this is the type of approach that house democrats make it in america plan has endorsed democrats make it in america plan has endorsed. unfortunately this will consolidate 35 programs into a single work force investment fund. that may sound good, but it lacks any priority of service for those facing the highest barriers to employment. these include low-income individuals and those with poor work histories. it ends the requirement that state and local work force investment boards include representation of work force workers, labor relateation, and removes much-needed funding for low-income youth, other than job corps. mr. chairman, this is not the work force investment act re-authorization that the american people expect, nor the one that congress should pass. we need one that invests in competitiveness, jobs and the growth of our manufacturing sector. we need the alternative offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. i hope my republican friends will set partisanship aside and work with us to enact legislation that helps all of our people find jobs and pursue the opportunities that make our country great. we have had some success in this congress, when we acted in a bipartisan fashion. we had it just a few days ago on the violence against women act. but when we act in a partisan fashion we fail. and this country is sick of failure, sick of this congress inability to work together and this is an example. a bill that has historically been passed in a bipartisan fashion comes to this floor in a very partisan fashion. what a shame. what a shame for america. what a shame for americans. what a shame for work force development. what a shame for our ability to compete and to grow and create jobs. let s pass this alternative that the gentleman from massachusetts has offered and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman s time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. tierney: mr. chair, first of all, for having the discussion on that, apparently the time was a little bit confused on that. i would ask unanimous consent that both sides be allotted an additional minute. the chair: without objection, each side may have one additional minute. no objection being heard, so ordered. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: mr. chairman, can i now inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side? the chair: yes. the gentleman from minnesota has six minutes remaining. the gentleman from massachusetts has one minute remaining. mr. kline: i thank the chair. i m pleased to yield three minutes to the chief deputy whip, the gentleman from illinois, mr. roskam. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. mr. roskam: i thank the gentleman for yielding and thank you. look, we were admonished a minute ago in the well of the house about the shame of things and i think we can all accept admonition that we as a congress need to do better. but part of doing better, part of creating a bipartisan bill is showing up to do the work. so, when the minority chooses to walk out of a proceeding, while that s their prerogative, it doesn t create the environment for bipartisanship. enough said. we re also told that there s a shame in disappointment and not working and i would ashame that that shame and disappointment goes back to the previous majority, mr. chairman, who failed to do this work. now, that s living in the rearview mirror and enough of that. so the question is, how do we move forward? how do we take bipartisan or actually more importantly nonpartisan advice from the government accounting office which has looked at the status quo and made a couple of points? they said, the status quo is a failure, the status quo isn t syncing up, job creation opportunities, that is job training where the actual jobs are, or said another way, we ve got a status quo that s good for job trainers but it s not good for the people that we all claim to speak for. that is those who are unemployed and need a skill. so we were also told a minute ago that, and i think the word was a majority of those who were involved somehow are opposed to the g.o.p. plan, i m getting data that shows that there s dozens of groups, and i m sure it s on the work force website, that are supporting this. so here s the question. do we listen to the g.a.o., do we say we re not going to defend the status quo, we re not going to bulk up with more bureaucracy but instead in a time when everybody recognizes that resources are limited, we re going to consolidate, be smart, be clever about how we re doing things in order to get this done and i think the failure with all due respect of the democratic substitute is that it creates six new programs as opposed to consolidating and putting all of these savings i might add back into the very job training programs that we re all trying to defend. so i accept admonish where admonish is due but i think admonition where admonition is due but i think we re reluctant to say there s not a bipartisan opportunity when part of being bipartisan is making sure that we show up for that opportunity. with that i urge a no vote on the substitute and a yes vote on the underlying bill and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. chairman. could i inquire, you have no other speakers and you have the right to close? the gentleman from massachusetts has the right to close? the chair: the gentleman from minnesota has the right to close. the chair: that is correct. mr. kline: i agree with you. it seems very unfair. but you do have the right to close. if you re the last speaker, so we ll do that. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. tierney: previous speaker i don t know if he he stayed, he talked about the environment being set. the environment for this is set in a hyper partisan nature of the last session s presentation of the bill similar to this. the bill this time where they are giving no right to consult, showing up to participate in a so-called markup process where every vote would have been on a partisan basis. the issue is whether or not people reach across the aisle as republican friend indicated is the majority s spot to do this. it s one thing to listen, another to comprehend. g.a.o. s report, want to listen to it being read on that, indicated there were a number of programs, only five have been eval witted. we would have begged for evaluation we never had. talked about the fact that some might have overlapped, said nothing about programs needing to be eliminated or terminated or saying they were duplicative on that. we needed to determine that. the underlying bill fails a number of reasons i stated earlier. the amendment improves that but again the best bill would have been a bill where people sat down member to member, worked out their differences and presented to the american public and president s signature a bill that was bipartisan in nature and served both the employers and perspective employees. thank you. the chair: the gentleman s time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for three minutes. mr. kline: i thank you, mr. chairman. interesting discussion today about what constitutes bipartisanship. i would just note for the record that when we attempted to re-authorize the work force investment act in the last congress and moved it through committee, amendments were offered by republicans and democrats, and amendments offered by republicans and democrats were included. in fact some of those democrat amendments are included in the underlying bill today. there have been accusations all morning about how the skills act is going to stop training for all sorts of people. we had various strawmen here. it was women and people with disabilities and all manner of things we were just going to shut out, but as the gentleman from massachusetts said sometimes it s helpful to read the language. in the skills act, in the underlying bill, it insists that state and local boards put together a plan that has a description the local area and state will serve the employment and training needs, and i m quoting, of dishe located workers including displaced homemakers, low-income individuals, including recipients of public assistance such as the supplemental nutrition assistance program, long-term unemployed individuals, including individuals who have, as youed entitlement to state and federal unemployment compensation, english learners, homeless individuals, individuals training for nontraditional employment, youth, including out of school youth and at-risk youth, older workers, ex-offenders, refugee and entrants, veterans, including disabled veterans and homeless veterans and native americans. in the bill. we believe that we have a choice in front of us today. we brought forth a bill that says we need to address these needs with this program. simple. straightforward. allowing these people the opportunity to go and get directly the training they need. to get rid of that confusing maze. to get rid of red tape and allow people to get the training they need, including all these people. what has been proposed by the gentleman from massachusetts to address these needs is this program, the current program, minus one, and six new programs. more complicated, bigger maze, more red tape, harder to use, serves these very people poorly. colleagues vote against the gentleman s amendment and support the underlying bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. tierney: request a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. those in favor of taking this vote by recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the chair: on this vote the yeas are 192. the noes are 227. he amendment is not adopted. the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly under the rule the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 803 and pursuant to house resolution 113, reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the question is on adoption of the amendment. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to reform and strengthen the work force investment system of the nation to put americans back to work and make the united states more competitive in the 21st century. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will come to order. the house will be in order. the house cannot proceed until members come to order. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. miller: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. george miller of california moves to recommit the bill h.r. 80 to the committee on education and work force with instructions to report the same forthwith to the house withle following amendment. insert after section 4 the following, section 5, protection of wages and job opportunities for seniors, veterans, women mr. miller: i ask unanimous consent to suspend the reading of the amendment. the motion. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to dispensing with the reading? without objection, the reading for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? the gentleman from minnesota objects. the clerk will read. the clerk: with disabilities. nothing in this act or the amendments made by this act shall repeal, deny, or weaken the wages, employment protections, or training opportunities or educational benefits for the following. one, seniors who receive employment opportunities and wage protections under the older americans act of 1965 public law 89-73. two, veterans protected under the disabled veterans outreach program under section 4103-a and programs under 4104 of title 38 united states code. 3, women who receive training and other employment assistance under the women and apprenticeship and ontraditional occupations act. 4, receive employment opportunities under youth build programs, the youth conservation corps act, and any other youth training programs under the work force investment act of 1998. or five, individuals with disabilities who are provided job opportunities under the rehabilitation act of 1973, 29 nited states code, 701et sec which ture. minimum wage, one, in general section 6-a-1 of the fair labor standards act of 1938. 29 united states code 206-a-1 is amended to read as follows. one, except as otherwise provided in this section not less than, a, $8.20 an hour beginning on the first day of the third month that begins after the date of enactment of the skills act. b, $9.15 an hour beginning one year after that first day. c, $10.10 an hour beginning two years after that first day. and d, beginning on the date that is three years after that first day and annually thereafter the amount determined by the secretary pursuant to subsection h, two, determination based on increase in the consumer price index. section of the fair labor standards act of 1938, 29 u.s.c. 2006 is amended by adding at the end the following, h-1 each year not later than 09 days before a new minimum wage determined under section a-1-d is to take effect the secretary shall determine the minimum wage to be in effect pursuant to this subsection for the subsequent one-year period. the wage determined pursuant to this subsection for a year shall be a, not less than the amount in effect under subsection 5. -1 on the date of such determination. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will suspend. mr. kline: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to dispensing with the reading? is recognized.an mr. miller: i met a young man the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. . is the gentleman oppose the to the bid? mr. miller: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. one moment. the house will be in order. the house will be in order so the gentleman may be heard. . the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. miller: mr. speaker, last week i met a young man named gregory noso. he lived in block lynn, he s married, they have a little 3 years will soon turn old. he s a pizza delivery man. he makes $7.25 an hour but he can t make ends meet. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman s correct. the house is not in order. he house will come to order. he gentleman will suspend. the gentleman may continue. as gregory told me, he can t make ends meet. if he pays one bill he can t pay another. he told me, i m delivering food to other people all day but sometimes i need food stamps so my family can eat. when i look at the bill before us i think of gregory and a million other hardworking americans like him. the bill before us is not for him. he s low-income. under this bill he loses his priority of service. even if he wanted to train, to try to get new skills for a better job with better wages, to provide for his family, with this bill he wouldn t be able to. with this bill he shouldn t ask what it does for people like gregory but what it does to them. under the foxx bill, seniors and youth no longer have ways of protection. low-income workers no longer get a priority of service. the voices of labor and community colleges are squeezed off the work investment board and the poor and disadvantage get the shaft. we propose this motion to do something different. so that no matter what happens with the adoption of the foxx bill, the poor will get a better shot at better jobs and those who are working and low-wage jobs will get a decent wage. this amendment raises the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. and indexes it for inflation and gives tip workers a raise for the first time in 20 years. for the first time in 20 years they will get a shot at a raise, at a decent wage for the work that they do, on waiting on other people. without an increase in years, the working poor have been falling further and further behind. while corporate profits soar, while the dow breaks new records, and while c.e.o. s take home 380 times the wages of average workers, the lowest paid workers are falling behind. if we vote to raise the minimum wage we pump more than $32 billion into the economy. money into working people s pockets, money into main street small businesses, money spent that demands an generates jobs. some businesses might have to pay higher wages but they ll see higher revenues thanks to higher demand. the number one complaint according to steve chase, the , not enough o.l. customers on main street because they re not earning enough money. they can t spend on main street because they re not earning enough money. that s why business owners that s why business owners are coming out for the raise. large businesses like the c.e.o. of costco encouraging and supporting the minimum wage. small businesses like the restaurant who came out for the minimum wage. business leaders like the c.e.o. of the u.s. women s chamber of commerce coming out for the minimum wage. in 2005 the chairman of the board of wal-mart came out for the minimum wage because like today their customers don t have enough money to buy the necessities of life. they don t have enough money for the necessities of life. so think what this means, if they can have an increase in the minimum wage. think what this means to those individuals. over 2/3 of the people in this country support an increase to the minimum wage. a majority of self-identified republicans support an increase in the minimum wage. and we must understand that this is a pay raise for 30 million americans, half of those workers are women in this country. 88% of those workers are at least 20 years of age. and 17 million children will live in a family that will get an increase in the wages and the income to those families. 17 million children. these hardworking americans have suffered enough in the great recession. enough of the attacks on medicare, head start and now job training. let s do something different this time. let s do something that s right. let s reward work. for people who go to work every day in very difficult jobs, sometimes very dirty jobs, sometimes very demeaning jobs and they work every day and they go home poor. at the end of the year, they end up poor. they work 52 weeks, they end up poor. they work in tough jobs, they end up poor. now s your opportunity. now yes, sir you are a your opportunity to reward now s your opportunity to reward work, to provide this. lease he let s help these individuals, let s help these families. let s raise the minimum wage. it s time for $10.10 an hour. vote yes on the final passage to vote for the minimum wage and protect seniors, protect veterans, protect low-income workers. thank you very much. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair would ask members not to cross the well when another member has received recognition. the chair will remind all persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the house and that any manifestation of approval or dess approval of proceedings or other audible conversation is in disapproval of proceedings or other audible conversation is in violation of the rules of the house. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? mr. kline: seek time in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is opposed to the motion? mr. kline: i am. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i always appreciate the passion of my friend and colleague, the ranking member on the education the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman will suspend. he house will be in order. the gentleman may continue. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. no doubt personal incomes have been flat in recent years and unemployment remains high. 12 million americans unemployed , some 22 million americans underemployed. unemployment among youth is extraordinarily high. people trying to get into the work force and they can t get in. we need jobs out there. the best approach right now is to get federal spending under control and government out of the way of the nation s job creators. republicans are always willing to discuss responsible proposals that will promote economic growth and help people get to work. since the motion to recommit would force this committee to advance a proposal that may hurt workers and job creators, increase unemployment, i urge my colleagues to vote no on the motion, yes on the underlying bill and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. miller: mr. speaker, on that i ask the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this five-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a five-minute vote on passage of the bill if ordered and approval of the journal if ordered. this is a pive minute d vote. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore:on on this vote the yeas are 184. the nays are 233. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 215. the nays are 202. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question of agreeing to the speaker s approval of the journal. which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker s approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the journal stands approved. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states, this year s economic report of the president describes the progress we have made recovering from the worst economic crisis since the great depression. after years of grueling recession, our businesses have created over six million new jobs. as a nation, we now buy more american cars than we have in five years and less foreign oil than we have in 20 years. our housing market is healing and consumers patience and homeowners enjoy stronger protections than ever before. but there are still millions of americans whose hard work and dedication have not been rewarded. our economy is adding jobs but too many of our fellow citizens still can t find full-time employment. corporate profits have reached all-time highs, but for more than a decade, wages and incomes for americans have not budget. we need to grow our economy and create good middle-class jobs. that has to be our north star. that has to drive every decision we make in washington. every day we should ask ourselves three questions how do we attract more jobs to our shores? how do we equip our people with the skills needed to do those jobs? and how do we make sure that hard work leads to a decent living? we can begin by making america a magnet for new jobs and manufacturing. after shutting jobs for more than a decade, our manufacturers have added about half million new jobs over the past three years. we need to accelerate that trend by launching more manufacturing hubs that hits to global centers of high-tech jobs and manufacturing. these steps will help entrepreneurs and small business owners expand and create jobs. but we also need to provide every american with the skills and training they need to fill those jobs. we also need to reward hard work and declare that no one who works full time should have to live in poverty by raising the minimum wage so that it s a wage you can live on, and it s time to harness the talents and ingenuity of hardworking immigrants by finally passing commonsense immigration reform, continuing to strengthen border security, holding employers accountable, establishing a responsible path to earned citizenship, reuniting families and attracting highly skilled entrepreneurs, engineers and scientists that will help create jobs. over the last few years, both parties have worked together to reduce the deficit by more than $2.5 trillion which puts us more than halfway towards the goal of $4 trillion in deficit reduction that economists say we need to stabilize our finances. most americans, democrats, republicans and independents, understand that we just can t cut our way to prosperity. that s why i put forward a balanced approach to deficit reduction that makes responsible reforms to bring down the cost of health care for an aging generation. the single biggest driver of our long-term debt and save hundreds of billions of dollars by getting rid of tax loopholes and deductions for the well-off and well connected. the american people don t expect their government to solve every problem. they don t expect those of us in washington to agree on every issue but they do expect us to put the nation s interests before the party interests. they do expect us to forge reasonable compromise where we can. our work will not be easy, but america only moves forward when we do so together, when we accept certain obligations to one another and to future generations. that s the american story. that s how we will write the next great chapter together. signed, barack obama, the white house. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the joint economic committee and ordered printed. the chair announces the speaker s appointment pursuant to section 4-b of the centennial commission act, public law 112-272, in the order of the house of january 3, 2013, of the following individual on the part of the house to the world war i centennial commission. the clerk: mr. ted poe of humble, texas. the speaker pro tempore: the chair announces the speaker s appointment pursuant to section 313 of the legislative branch appropriations act, 2001, 2- usc, as amended by section 1601 of public law 111-68 and the order of the house of january 3, 2013, the following member on the part of the house to the board of trustees of the open world leadership center. the clerk: mr. fortenberry of ebraska. mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for the purposes of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: i yield to my friend, the majority leader, mr. cantor, of virginia. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman from maryland, the democratic whip, for yielding. mr. speaker, on monday the house will meet at noon for morning hour, and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m.. on tuesday and wednesday the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on thursday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. on friday no votes are expected. mr. speaker, the house will consider a few suspensions on monday, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business today. in addition we ll take up an expected senate amendment to the house s continued resolution, ensuring that the federal government remains funded beyond march 27. we ll also consider resolution providing for the funding of the house s committees. this is a responsible resolution that makes tough choices and abides by sequestration. finally, mr. speaker, the republican house will consider and pass a budget resolution on time for a third consecutive year. the republican plan put forward by chairman paul ryan in the budget committee will increase economic growth and job creation, cut wasteful government spending and strengthen our entitle am programs entitlement programs. and for first time in recent memory, the house s budget will balance in 10 years. before i yield back, i d like to acknowledge the launch of the house s historians new website, the house and selma, bridging history and memories. this important historical record is now available for the public to explore at history.house.gov. it will soon include oral testimonies from members of congress like john lewis, describing their role and contributions to the civil rights movement. i was proud to join congressman john lewis, congresswoman terri sewell, and martha roby, as well as others and the gentleman as well in that trip to selma and montgomery this year, but those particular who were active and involved in the unveiling of this project, i look forward to its growth in the years to come. i thank the gentleman from maryland and yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. and i would remark that i was pleased that he had the pportunity to go to selma with john lewis and others of us who had the opportunity to go to the birth place of our colleague terri sewell. congresswoman sewell is on the floor. the march from selma to montgomery, of course, which was interdicted by members of the alabama state police at the was tion of the governor one of the events, as the gentleman knows, that led to the introduction, passage and signing by president johnson of we oting rights act and are privileged to serve with someone whose contribution to this country and to its realization of its promise of equality to all was so enhanced by the life and commitment and courage of john lewis, our colleague. and i was glad that the gentleman participated with us on that. i also am very pleased to hear about the website. i think that s a very positive step. and i want to thank the gentleman also for the information about next week. mr. leader, i d first like to ask about the budget resolution that you referenced that will be coming next week. i wondered if there s any plan on the floor to replace the sequester which all of us seem to think is irrational, at least i think it s irrational, and most of the colleagues i talk to think it s irrational in that it is a meat axe approach. we have offered a number of times to get to the same budget savings but notwithstanding that, whether there was any thought of replacing the sequester with its cuts to high-priority and low-priority by the same percentage to replace that. is there any plan to do that as far as you know? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i respond to the gentleman. as the gentleman knows, the c.r. and the amendments of the senate that the senate is working on contains within it measures dealing with certain sectors of government that prescribe for spending plans hat avoid that very blunt, indiscriminant approach that the gentleman speaks about. the gentleman knows, i agree with him, these kinds of cuts are not smart. they are indiscriminant. they save they cut good programs just like they cut bad programs. i don t think any of us would choose to do things that way. i look forward to working with him to see what we can do to even expand the prescription to go beyond that which is in the sequester. and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments and that would be a positive effort i think toward that and of course if we could adopt a budget and if we could adopt appropriation bills and ways and means recommendations pursuant to such a budget, that preferred ery much option than the sequester. having said that, the budget committee marked up this week on wednesday, and i know members of the committee worked well into the night, both republicans and democrats, and i wanted to ask the gentleman, i know that normally when we bring a budget, both sides have brought a budget, which does in fact allow for substitutes, but for the most part does not allow individual amendments. now i say that because so many amendments were rejected in the committee. mr. card miss it, for example, from california, offered an amendment to protect the mortgage interest deduction for the middle class. that amendment was voted unanimously by democrats and unanimously opposed by the republican members of the committee. mr. cicilline voted offered an amendment to protect workers from privatizing social security. again on a partisan vote, with democrats supporting the cicilline amendment and republicans opposing it, it was rejected. mr. jeffries from new york offered an amendment to prevent the student loan interest rate as the bling which is gentleman knows is set to occur on june 30 without our action. again unfortunately the same bipartisan vote. democrats voting for the jeffries amendment and republicans voting against it. it failed. mr. pocan of wisconsin offered an amendment to protect middle class americans from tax increases. it seems to me that we have agreement on that but nevertheless that amendment was rejected again on a bipartisan on a partisan vote. with democrats voting for it and republicans voting against it. which i don t understand, kurt schrader from oregon offered a sense of congress amendment on the need for long-term balanced deficit reduction. that was also rejected on a party line basis. i could go on and mention other amendments, there were approximately 28 of them. my question to you is, mr. leader, is it possible that any of those amendments would be made in order so that the house might work its will on those propositions? and i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman, mr. speaker, and what i would say in response, as the gentleman knows it s been the tradition of the house both with republican and democratic majorities that when the budget comes to the floor there are substitutes that are offered. as the gentleman knows, the budget is a very complex and large document and there are easy ways to perhaps distort one s intent by offering amendments and i believe and i would just venture to guess that s why the tradition is as it is. both under democratic majority and republican, which is to allow for substitutes and anticipate the very robust debate around the offering of substitutes as well as the passage of our budget next week. and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. i would suggest that the amendments put forward do in fact express policy which of course is what the budget does. and those policies are pretty straightforward in terms of not raising taxes on the middle class, on making sure that students don t have to pay higher interests for their loans and making sure that we do in fact proceed with a comprehensive agreement not only to replace the sequester but to, in a bipartisan way, get us on a road to fiscal sustainability. regrettably as i think the gentleman probably knows, most budgets are usually partisan documents, whether they re offered by democrats or republicans. i understand that. rarely have we been in the position that we now find ourselves in, however. rarely have i experienced in the 32 years i ve been here, if ever, the fiscal crisises that occur on such a regular basis here. the public, i think the economy, i think the business community and indeed the international community is hoping that we get on a solid path. the gentleman mentioned that the budget was a complex document. i think that that s a fair statement. but unfortunately the budget that has been proposed, which the gentleman is very pleased to say balances within 10 years, unfortunately doesn t tell us how it s going to do so. it is in fact filled with conclusions but not with policies to get us to that end. in fact, dana millback of the washington post, i think you probably read this, so many blanks in the ryan budget that it could be a mad lib s exercise which i is a children s book that which i understand is a children s book that has a couple of sentences and the rest is fill-in the-the blanks. this of course is not a game. it s black box budgeting in my opinion and lowesty aims which is that we balance in 10 years. if there were no democrats in the congress of the united states, i tell my friend with all due respect, if there were no democrats in the congress of the united states, in my view you could not implement the ryan budget. you couldn t get appropriation bills passed and you could not pass a ways and means tax provision that would meet the requirements of the ryan budget. and in addition to that, will leader, you and i both mr. leader, you and i both know we voted over 30 times to repeal the affordable care act. that s not going to happen. and if we want to do something in a bipartisan fashion, if we want to get to an end here, we ought to stop pretending that we re going to repeal the affordable care act. we had an election about that. we won. the president won. very frankly, even in the house there were more people voted for democrats than voted for republicans for the house of representatives. having said that, you re in charge, that s the law. and you won fair and square. but having said that, we re going to need to get to an agreement. i would hope that, as we deal with the budget, and i will oppose the ryan budget, i think the ryan budget s unrealistic, i think the ryan budget will not possibly be able to balance within 10 years, i wish we could. but if we do that we re going to badly damage the economy that the gentleman talks about. we re going to undermine the creation of jobs. i don t say that. c.b.o. says that. c.b.o. says the sequester itself is going to cost us 750,000 to a million jobs. the ryan budget, if adopted, would cost us over two million jobs. so i m hopeful that as we consider the budget and my expectation is that your budget will probably pass this house, but my hope is and urging, mr. leader, is that we deal with this budget. i don t know whether the murray budget s going to pass or not through the senate, i hope they pass some alternative. not because the budget for pay bill passed which i think was a terrible bill to put on this floor and a terrible bill to pass. i think it sets a terrible precedent about you got to pass something or you don t get paid. that s not what our democracy is about. people voting their conscience is what our democracy ought to be about, not whether or not they get paid. but in any event, mr. leader, i m hopeful that in fact we can get to, in some form or fashion or another, a budget, an appropriation bills and a bill that can be signed by and a ways and means bill that can be signed by the president, passed by the senate, passed by this house so we can get our country on a fiscally sustainable path. and i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i appreciate the gentleman and his sentiments and wanting to try to work together and as he knows, i have always held the position that there are going to be differences in this house and i hear the gentleman saying he doesn t want to support the ryan budget. that s why we re going to have debate on his party s alternative budget. i agree with the gentleman, we ought to agree on some type of resolution. the best way forward to do that, mr. speaker, in my mind is to be able to set the differences aside. there are big differences on health care. we believe that obamacare is not good for this country, not good for health care, and we re going to continue to advocate that position because unfortunately what we re going to see is a continuing increase in costs, rate shock that would come into play over the next year whereas more and more of the american people are going to realize this is going to be a very expensive endeavor with a big question mark as to whether the quality of health care is going to stay the same or will stagnate and become worse. that question s still unanswered. we believe very strongly in our position it ought to be patient-centered care. we ought not have this board of 15 unelected bureaucrats who deny or cut care for our seniors. the gentleman knows we disagree strongly on health care. we disagree strongly on taxes. yeah, we don t want to raise taxes. we just had a huge tax increase in the beginning of the year. we don t think you ought to be raising taxes in this town every quarter, but every time we hear from the president because we heard and he was nice enough to come and visit our conference this week we heard yet again the cry for more taxes. we saw an introduction of the murray budget in the senate. $1 trillion of more taxes to try and say that the american people are going to be benefited by that kind of tax levy i think is something we take strong exception with. but the gentleman s right, we can agree on some things. let s go find where we can agree, and i look forward to doing the things that we can do together, like extending the welfare reforms that we did this week, like making sure that we also do the things we did today on the floor without much help from the other side. and that is, mr. speaker, try and put some good government practices into place. that skills act was a it came from a recommendation of the g.a.o. and said you got 50 programs, a maze of bureaucracy, unemployed people have a very difficult time of even beginning to navigate that maze if they want skills to get back to work. that was the essence behind the bill. and we also said you need some flexibility. take people and put them back to work, so get the community colleges and the other training forces in place to respond to the marketplace where they re opening job openings. not some micromanaged idea of what that should be from washington. i think we can agree on some kind of commonsense principles like that. so, again, i appreciate the sentiment of the gentleman, look forward to working with him on some of the big challenges we face as well as those issues that working families face every single day. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. mr. speaker, the majority leader says his side is against the affordable care act. he said that regularly since it was first considered. he said they re against revenues. mr. speaker, he said that repeatedly. the majority party has said that repeatedly. of course, pursuant to the republican tax bill of 2001 and 2003, rates went up on january 1. it went up substantially. you could look at it half full or half empty. the gentleman looks at it as we increase $600 billion in taxes, actually taxes would propose $4 trillion had the tax law that was in effect at that time stayed in effect. the gentleman knows that so you can look at it as a tax increase or tax decrease ensuring that middle-class taxpayers didn t get an increase. the american people, of course, 80% of them say what we did was the right thing. now, we had an election and the gentleman s position did not prevail in that election, but we are still hoist on the pitard of saying we disagree, do it our way or the highway. the gentleman mentions the skills act. i wish we had an opportunity. we need to make the programs more focused, more effective and the gentleman s absolutely right on that. gave unately the majority no ability to have bipartisan input into that bill and so its prospects for passage are almost minimal. .aybe nil so that the gentleman continues in my view partly keep us in this gridlock. we understand your position. you understand our position. we ought to get off our positions. the only way democracy s going to work is if we come to an agreement and simply restating what i know to be your position or me to restate i know what my position is, we ve already come i think pretty far way towards your position in trying to reduce spending. about $1 trillion worth, which by the way, your budget takes credit for. we have a baseline that s been reduced because of the revenues that are in the affordable care act, which you take credit for. you take credit for the $715 billion in your budget while repealing the affordable care act, but you take credit for the $715 billion that reduced the baseline so that on the one hand you want to say i m against this, on the other hand you want to use the revenue that it produced or the baseline that it reduced. so i would hope we have the same debate every week. it doesn t get us anywhere. the american people are upset with us. they ought to be. i tell the press 10% of the people think we re doing ok. they re wrong. we re not doing ok. and our country as a result is not having the kind of success in growing jobs that it ought to have. now, let me ask you because i don t think you re going to change my mind or i m going to change yours right now mr. cantor: if the gentleman will yield? mr. hoyer: i ll yield. mr. cantor: just responding to the gentleman s allegations as there wasn t an open process with regard to passage of the skills act, the gentleman s members, the members of the minority walked out on the committee markup. now, if you can t show up for work, how are you going to participate in the markup in shaping of a bill? and the committee process was fair. it was open. there was hearings. there was a markup. and the gentleman s members on the minority side chose not to participate. now, if you re asking what the american people expect, i think they expect there s going to be disagreement but i think they expect everybody to show up for work, and that didn t happen. so, you know, i say to the gentleman, we continue and i and he has my commitment. he knows that. to work together, to have an open process. our speaker has continued to uphold that as a goal, so i hope we can sort of resolve that lingering question, especially around this bill. the skills act is something we all should have agreed on. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i wish i had the figures in front of me and i don t, but it s my understanding the skills act was introduced february 25, marked up shortly thereafter. there may have been hearings in the last last year when the skills act was passed on bipartisan vote. the reasons the members walked out was because they didn t believe they were given an opportunity to interface. but i don t have the facts strongly as i ought to have them, but i believe the proximity of introduction, markup was very, very close and therefore the opportunity and the inclination of the committee to engage in a bipartisan discussion of what the bill ought to look like which should have been a bipartisan bill was not there but let me get my facts straight so we can discuss that perhaps a little further at some point. april schedule, mr. chairman i mean, mr. leader. mr. speaker, if the majority leader could give us some information on the april schedule as we go forward. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i d be delighted to respond to the gentleman s request. just to give you a general idea of the kind of things that we ll be considering upcoming. we look to consider some cybersecurity legislation that will result from the work of multiple committees. the gentleman knows as well as i that we face a very serious threat in the cybersecurity arena. we want to take action as a house. we want to take bipartisan action and look forward to working with him on that. we re also going toiking up the working families flex taking up the working families flexibility act. this will provide working moms and dads with flexibility as they try and manage their obligations at work and at home. we also are going to be looking at taking up some measures in the area of health care and innovation and pursue an agenda that focuses on medical research. i know the gentleman has been a on of that and we champion of that and we want to promise the devotion of resources to medical research, to curing disease and to developing therapies that increase and enhance the quality of life for so many americans who are afflicted by disease. we ll be working on that. we ll also be looking at some legislation in the area of domestic energy production that will lead to more jobs, that will lead to more energy independence for america. these are the kinds of things that we look to in april, mr. speaker, and i would tell the gentleman again, look forward to working with him in an open process, in a bipartisan fashion. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. now, we ll be ending now, but i know you have an extraordinarily able assistant sitting to your right who advises you on issues of great importance to our country. the gentleman to my right does the same thing for me. the gentleman to my right went to wake forest. maryland played wake forest last night. and i hope as we play duke tonight that we are equally successful, mr. nevins, who is a graduate of duke, it will be a little tougher game than wake forest, i understand, but we look forward to trying to be successful in that effort. kyle nevins is a wonderful member of the majority leader s staff. he worked for my dear and close friend, roy blunt, for some period of time, and he began working for mr. cantor in 2008 as his floor director, and he s been a really delight to work with and i know mr. burns and my floor staff all appreciate all the work he s done. and while i want to be very atuesdayive today, i want him afusiv today, i want him to know that i will be rooting against duke when they play maryland and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet on monday next when it shall convene at noon for morn hour debate and morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute peeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, durable medical equipment supplier recently sued the u.s. department of health and human services over medicare s competitive bidding program. in february, the judge dismissed the case stating the supplier had no jurisdiction because congress prohibited judicial review of the program in 2003. the court was, and i quote, stated deeply concerned about the unjust consequences of its order. so concerned the court was compelled to issue a memorandum from the full opinion. all citizens are entitled to equal justice under law by the right to receive medically necessary treatment. the extent that a civilized society is measured which it protects its most vulnerable members, it has failed today. congress has the benefit to ensure c.m.s. is transparent and the comparative bidding program doesn t prevent access to these critical services. i will not be complacent, mr. speaker, and this body should not be content with the culture of insecurity by providers and the vulnerable population they serve. the american people deserve better and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. speaker, i pay tribute today to dr. deana stallings, a professor of forensics at riverside community college, beloved by her students and whose passing my community mourns deeply. mr. takano: this sunday my community will join together to celebrate her life which was devoted to teaching the art of persuasive speaking. dr. stallings achieved national recognition during her 26-year career at r.c.c. directing the forensics and debate programs. she was the first woman to be named a full professor at r.c.c. and in the 1960 s and 1970 s she coached teams that won national competition. after retiring, dr. stallings continued a deep involvement with friends of forensics, a group she founded to promote speaking activities for students from kindergarten through 12th grade. mr. speaker, we count ourselves fortunate to have had dr. stallings as a leader within our community, her commitment to faith, family, and forensics has left a profound impact on the our nation. as dr. stallings said herself, you measure yourself by the service you give to others. let us measure up to her legacy in both our service to america and our democratic discourse. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. neugebauer: thank you, mr. speaker. it s the job of this congress to pass a responsible budget that protects our seniors and the future for generations to come. the same future you and i enjoy today. like goldielocks, the american people have three choices. we have the senate democratic plan which raises taxes, increases spending, and never balances. that s too much government. then we have the president s plan no, wait. we don t have the president s plan yet although it was due last month. he keeps talking about a balanced approach, but he leaves out one key component in his budget. it doesn t actually balance. that s not governing at all. finally we have the house republican plan which takes a balanced approach to deficit reduction and job growth. a balanced budget isn t some fairy tale, it s not just another washington talking point. it offers reresults for the american people. it will grow our economy, it will create five million new jobs and increase the median income for americans to over $80,000. the republicans are offering a better way to move forward and i think the american people will find this proposal is just right. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman s recognized for one minute. mr. waxman: we have come a long way over the last four years for clean renewable energy, like wind and solar, and the new tailpipe standards for automobiles will double the fuel efficiency of our passenger vehicles. still there s much that needs to be done. study after study has shown that the effects of climate change are occurring sooner and with greater effect than expected. superstorm sandy, the devastating drought that hurt farmers in the midwest, last summer s heat waves, and forest fires. scientists tell us that these are signs of climate change and it s going to get worse if we don t act to address it. over the last two years the united states has experienced 25 weather disasters that have caused more than $180 billion in damage. it s time to get serious about clean energy, the consequences are too grave to do otherwise. yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. speaker, this week senate democrats introduced a budget that will never balance. ever. but it does raise taxes by $1 trillion. that will be helpful to working families. the good news is next week we ll have an opportunity to consider the house budget proposal which properly addresses the spending problem and makes commonsense reforms in order to pay down our debt. now keeping with the committee s theme of balancing the budget within 10 years, i have introduced my own balanced budget amendment, house joint resolution 36, which also balances within 10 years. we don t want to balance the budget on the backs of taxpayers. that s why we require a 3/5 majority to raise revenue and the debt limit. it also requires agencies and departments to justify their funding. now, we are living in modern times so it allows to be waived during times of war, military conflict, and during natural disasters. mr. perryon 49 states, including pennsylvania where i live, do this. single moms, families, cops on the beat, working folks do it, and washington should do it, too. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from alabama seek recognition? ms. sewell: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. sewell: i rise to speak against the ryan budget. mr. speaker, here we go again. another house republican budget filled with the same gimmick and fuzzy math that the american people resoundly rejected last fall during the presidential election. it s another budget that slashes critical economic investments, undermines job growth, and attempts to reduce the deficit on the backs of our seniors, the disabled, women, and low-income families. we cannot pass this budget. just like we could not pass it last year. it increases tax breaks for the wealthiest americans at the expense of the middle class. on average $2,000 more in taxes will be charged to the middle class. this budget also does nothing to replace the arbitrary and irrational cuts of the sequester , and as a result, 750,000 jobs will be lost this year alone. the republican budget would end medicare as we know it, and force alabama seniors to pay more for health care. it will reopen the doughnut hole and 48,264 alabama seniors will have to pay more for prescription drugs. this budget also cuts $6.2 billion in health care. mr. speaker, the american people deserve more. we can t allow our republican leadership to continue to try to give streaks to the wealthy at the expense of the middle class tax breaks to the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. speaker, i rise today to urge my colleagues to support the cross border trade enhancement act, a bipartisan bill introduced this week that will create jobs and facilitate trade at no cost to the federal government. trade between the u.s. and mexico has grown by 600% in 1990 and continues to increase each year. 100,000 jobs in el paso, texas, and six million nationwide depend on this trade. unfortunately capacity at our ports of entry have not kept pace. despite increased staffing and use of technology, waits at our ports are unpredictable and unacceptably long. mr. o rourke: this bill will help us solve this problem. by authorizing public-private partnerships, this legislation would provide customs and border control effective new tools to improve infrastructure, ban capacity, and increase staffing at our ports of entry without new costs to u.s. taxpayers. at a time of heightened partisanship, this legislation is proof that when democrats and republicans work together we can advance commonsense ideas that can create jobs. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. cohen: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. he cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. the ryan budget, words of the great republican president, the republicans like to remember, there they go again. the same budget. it s catering to the wealthy. it s cutting the middle class. it s reducing the top tax breaks to 25% which will give the wealthiest $200,000 a piece in tax breaks. it continues the sequestration, a stupid meat ax approach to our budget that cuts $1.6 billion from the national institute of health. anybody there, out there, mr. speaker, have cancer? heart disease? thinking about some relatives that might have alzheimer s? aids? diabetes? cures and treatments come from the national institute of health and you re not going to get them if they cut $1.8 billion out of it. and that savings, those cures, and that treatment, the cures and treatment will benefit the next generation more than this generation, and that s what we should be doing is investing there, and this foolish meat ax approach is to be continued with the ryan budget and cost us lives, stop us from being a leader in research and innovation. we need to have a smart budget and preserve our human infrastructure. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. speaker, i rise to comment about the budget introduced this week by republican budget chairman paul ryan. the first thing we notice about this budget is that it is nothing more than a tiresome rehash of the right-wing wish list. mr. cart write: i call it a tiresome rehash because we already know that representative ryan doesn t like ensuring that all americans have access to affordable health care. we remember he doesn t like allowing coverage for pre-existing conditions. we understand that he doesn t like closing the medicare part d loophole doughnut hole for seniors. we are acquainted with his dislike for granting preventive health care services to women. we already know that he wants to turn medicare into a lousy voucher system that costs seniors thousands of dollars extra every year for their health care whether they have it or not, and we already know that the american public rejects the position as it did in the last election. mr. speaker, i ask can we not at long last move on? yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house sundry communications. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have received a subpoena issued by the u.s. district court for the eastern district of california purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined under rule 8 that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly i intend to move to quash the subpoena. signed, sincerely, ted poe, member of congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have received a subpoena issued by the u.s. united states district court for the eastern district of california purr for thing to purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i i have determined under rule 8 that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly i intend to move to quash the subpoena. signed, sincerely, bob goodlatte, member of congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have received a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the eastern district of california purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined under rule 8 that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly i intend to move to quash the subpoena. signed, sincerely, mr. labrador, member of congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir. this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have been received a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the eastern district of california purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined that under rule 8 that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly i i tend to move to quash the subpoena, signed sincerely, lamar smith, member of congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives that i have received a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the eastern district of california purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel i have determined under rule 8 that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly, i intend to move to quash the subpoena. signed sincerely, george holding, member of congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally ruent to rule 8 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives that i have been issued a subpoena for the eastern district of california purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel i have determined under rule 8 that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly, i intend to move to quash the subpoena. signed sincerely, trent franks, member of congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives that i have received a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the eastern district of california purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined under rule 8 that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly, i intend to move to quash the subpoena. igned sincerely, keith rothfus, member of congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives that i have received a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the eastern district of california purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel i have determined under rule 8 that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly, i intend to move to quash the subpoena. signed sincerely, michele bachmann, member of congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have received a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the eastern district of california purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined under rule 8 that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly, i intend to move to quash the subpoena. signed sincerely, steve chabot, member of congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have received a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the eastern district of california purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel i have determined under rule 8 that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly, i intend to move to quash the subpoena. signed sincerely, ron desantis, member of the congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have received a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the eastern district of california purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined under rule 8 that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly, i intend to move to quash the subpoena. signed sincerely, blake farenthold, member of congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have received a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the eastern district of california purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined under rule 8 that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly, i intend to move to quash the system. signed sincerely, spencer bachus, member of congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have received a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the eastern district of california purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined under rule 8 that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly, i intend to move to quash the subpoena. signed sincerely, joe heck, member of congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have received a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the eastern district of california purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined that under rule 8 that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly, i intend to move to quash the subpoena. signed sincerely, louie gohmert, member of the congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have received a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the eastern district of california purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined under rule 8 the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly, i intend to move to quash the subpoena. signed sincerely, jim jordan, member of congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have received a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the eastern district of california purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined under rule 8 that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly, i intend to move to quash the subpoena. signed sincerely, jim sensenbrenner, member of congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have received a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the eastern district of california purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined under rule 8 that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly, i intend to move to quash the subpoena. signed sincerely, doug collins, member of congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have received a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the eastern district of california purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined under rule 8 that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly, i intend to move to quash the subpoena. signed sincerely, mike conaway, member of congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have received a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the eastern district of california purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined under rule 8 that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly, i intend to move to quash the subpoena. signed sincerely, john campbell, member of congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have received a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the eastern district of california purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined under rule 8 that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly, i intend to move to quash the subpoena. signed sincerely, darrell issa, member of congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have received a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the eastern district of california purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined under rule 8 that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly, i intend to move to quash the subpoena. signed sincerely, randy forbes, ember of congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have received a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the eastern district of california purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined under rule 8 that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly, i intend to move to quash the subpoena. signed sincerely, tray gowdy, member of trey gowdy, member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker s announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. woodall: i thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the majority leader for allowing me to utilize the time today. mr. speaker, you know, a lot of folks as votes have finished for the day and headed for their flights back home and i know folks are in their offices trying to finish up work, i appreciate you being here because what we heard when we haven t been debating the skills act, that fantastic bill that consolidates so many important job training programs from the multiple duplicative programs that we have today down into a few effective targeted programs, when we haven t been talking about that important work today, folks have been taking shots at the budget process. i m a member of the budget committee, mr. speaker. in fact, i m the chairman of the budget subcommittee on the rules committee, budget and legislative process, and i believe that what we do here with the budget is so important. i know my colleagues who will be debating this next week share that same view. i brought with me, mr. speaker, a copy of the path to prosperity, a responsible balanced budget. this is the budget that we produced in the budget committee. we went from about 10:00 a.m. on wednesday through almost midnight, we took every amendment that folks had to offer, we took a vote on every topic that folks wanted to consider and we produced a responsible budget that deals with the fact that spending is the problem. i heard my colleagues, mr. speaker, offer over and over again today over and over again today on the other side of the aisle talk in terms of heartlessness, of callousness, talking in terms of the production of this budget in a way that does not reflect american values. i tell you that s just patently false which is why i had to come down and speak to it this afternoon, mr. speaker. . what i have here is a chart that shows taxes. it begins in 2006 and runs out to 2041. it shows taxes as a percent of the size of the economy. population grows, inflation devalues our currency. the quan tating values, different topic for different day, but we measured it in terms of size of the economy. what our burden of taxation is. historically that burden of taxation has been about 18.1%. we had a dip in the recession ack in 2009, 2010. down below historical new orleans. when we talk about that norms. when we talk about it here on the floor of the house, moderates, liberals, conservatives, republicans, democrats, everyone agrees we need revenue at historical levels to fund the historical obligations of the government. here s the thing, mr. speaker. you look out from here we are in 2013 on out across the verizon as far as the eye can see, you see a level funding of our tax burden. you then here in this blue line see so a graphical representation of every single tax increase that the res. proposed. hear that. because so often on the floor of the house, mr. speaker, we talk about spending reductions on one side of the aisle and tax increases on the other side of the aisle. this blue line represents every single tax increase proposed by the president of the united states. so we have all the taxes we have today. we have all the taxes the blue line proposed by the president. then in the red line we have a reflection of the promises that this congress has made to the american people and future generations in terms of spending. now, again, mr. speaker, green represents historical taxes. blue represents all the taxes imagined by the president of the united states and the red represents the spending that is flooding the town of washington, d.c. spending is the problem, mr. speaker. if we took everything from everybody, if you and i got together with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and we decided we needed a 100% tax on everything that everyone in america has or will have, and we took it all, we still couldn t fund to this red line. there is no level of taxation this is 40% of the economy we are talking about here, mr. speaker. there is no level of taxation that we could have that could pay for the spending promises we have already made. and there are some on the floor of this house who want to make new promises tomorrow and the next day and the day after that. it s not a function of where our priorities are in terms of taking care of one another as americans. we share that priority. it is a function of whether or not we can afford to do it all from washington, d.c., and we can t. spending is the problem, mr. speaker. this is #spendingistheproblem you will a see that trending on twitter as folks come to the realization that we can t tax our way out of this circumstance. what do we do in the budget committee, mr. speaker? what did we do for 12 hours on wednesday and months and months of preparation? this is one of my favorite charts, mr. speaker. it s a chart that tracks the deficits. sometimes we get confused as we are talking about it, mr. speaker. the deficit is what you re adding to your credit card each year. the debt is what that total balance on the credit card is. this is a reflection of what we are adding to the credit card each year and what you see, mr. speaker, is a dramatic reduction in those deficits in 2013, 2014, and 2015. let me tell you why. you re part of this new freshman class, mr. speaker, i m part of the freshman class that came in two years ago, and we have a natural suspicion of all these wonderful plans in washington that they are laid out over a 10-year time frame we say, oh goodness, out there in years eight, nine, 10 we are going to do these wonderful and difficult things, but today here s one, two, three, what we are going to do is raise your taxes to get there. if i make a promise to you about what i m going to do in year 10, you need to be suspicious, you need to ask me what i m going to do between now and the next election, now and the next opportunity to vote me out of office if i make the wrong decisions. what you see reflected here, the red line representing current law, you see the path that current law has our deficits on. folks say that looks good. we are headed straight down. looks like congress is doing a lot of work. yes and no. we are headed down. we are headed down from record deficits begun in the obama administration. record deficits, deficits four times higher than the worst deficit ever experienced in the bush administration. bush administration was the former record holder for the most deficit spending in this country. president obama dwarfs that and goes four times higher. i came into this freshman class, mr. speaker, freshman class of almost 100 folks on both sides of the aisle who he decided that to run for congress because they wanted to solve problems. they didn t want to talk about who to blame, they wanted to talk about how they could solve the problems. we got together over the last two years and we turned the corner on those rising deficits, begin to bring deficits back down. but when these tools that we have been able to put in place, mr. speaker, expire, those deficits start heading right back up under current law. what can we do about it? we can change the way we do business in washington, d.c. which is what we did in the budget that we passed out of the budget committee, the budget that s going to be on the floor of the house next week. as you see represented by this greenline, mr. speaker, we go from the record setting deficit a 010 and 2011 down to budget that balances for the first time since the clinton administration. first time since bill clinton and newt gingrich, republicans and democrats, came together on the floor of this house to balance budget. the first time in about 15 years. we are doing that, mr. speaker. we are not doing it out in year 10. this budget, mr. speaker, that i m so proud of that has just a small part in helping to craft, it begin the tough decisions today. because we don t need to make promises about how we are going to fix things 10 years from now. we have certainty about how difficult things will be 10 years from now. we need to fix those things today. every day we put it off, it gets harder. but we are having a tough time finding agreement, mr. speaker. and i don t mean agreement on how to reduce the deficit. i don t mean an agreement on how to eliminate the debt. i mean an agreement on whether or not the debt in fact needs to be eliminated. now, at the end of this presentation, mr. speaker, i m going to get to why this is important. this is not a mathematical exercise. this is not a green eyeshade exercise. this is an exercise that impacts the quality of life of every single family in america. every child growing up in america today is going to have their opportunities curtailed by the debt that their parent and grandparents are leaving to them if we fail to act today. a debt that is growing faster and faster and faster. this isn t about numbers. this is about real lives and real opportunity, but i want to talk about the numbers before we get to the real lives, the real opportunities because i want you to understand the magnitude of the challenge. this is world war ii, mr. speaker. this is a chart that reflects the debt. the debt held by the public. in world war ii when we were fighting for freedom around the globe, when literally the future of the world hung in the balance , we borrowed an amount of money there to for unheard of in america. just over, in fact, 100% the size of economy america borrowed to win freedom around the globe. we began to pay that back, of course. and over the years that debt became lower and lower and lower and lower. here you see the spike in modern times, mr. speaker. that spike in the end of the bush years, beginning of the bow bama years, running on obama years running on today and you see the red line that projects the current path of debt. if we do nothing. folks often tell me back home, mr. speaker, congressman why don t you shut the government down and save some money? i have some bad news. if we close the congress today, if we locked the doors to the white house this afternoon, if the congress and the president never passed another law, never made another promise, this red line represents the promises we have already made. this red line isn t what happens if we act poorly. this red line is what happens if we fail to act at all. it takes affirmative action in order to bring that debt crisis down. look at the green space, mr. speaker. that s the path to prosperity. remember this chart represents debt. debt. not the deficit when you try to bring a budget to balance, but the debt that we are trying to pay back when you bring a budget to balance, when you create a surplus and use that surplus to pay back the folks from whom you borrowed. the path to prosperity, this budget, mr. speaker, that we have crafted in the budget committee, that i hope this house will pass next week, puts america on track not just to eliminate annual deficits. not just to end the increase of in federal illion debt, but to begin to pay that debt down so that we owe the world zero. zero. balancing the budget is not an exercise in and of itself. balancing the budget is what has to happen first so that you can pay back the folks from whom you borrowed. we take debt down to zero. this is what the president said. sunday morning television. abc s george stephanopoulos, march 15 of this year. we don t have an immediate crisis in terms of debt. in fact, for the next 10 years it s going to be in a sustainable place. here it is, mr. speaker. that red line you see rocketing towards the top of the page, it doesn t actually end up here, i just ran out of ink, mr. speaker, that red line continues off the chart in perpetuity. this is what the president calls a sustainable place. but this is what s even more important. every mom and dad in america knows this. when you re planning for your children s future, you don t begin with what you want for them today. you begin with what you want for them 10 years from now, and you begin to plan and work and save and scrimp so that it will be a reality 10 years from today. not just 10, but 20 and 30 to achieve the goals we want in the future, we have to begin today. and what the president has said the reason i bring this up, mr. speaker, is because when i quote the president back home, folks often think i m being spirited. why do you say those awful things about the president? i say i m not sayingfall things about the president. i think the president is a good man. he s got awful ideas but he s a good man. i m telling you what his ideas are. if he were here he would tell you the very same thing. i don t need to engage in hyperbole on the floor of the house, mr. speaker, because the president believes that we don t have a debt crisis. the president believes that it s all right if the debt continues to go higher and higher and higher forever. forever. that s not hyperbole. he would tell you that if he was standing here today. in fact, we can look at every budget the president has ever submitted. he he hasn t submitted a budget this year. he s going to go down in the record wooks as record books who has introduced his budget, the longest passed the legally required deadline in the history of presidents presenting a budget. that s where we are going to be today. he he has never introduced a budget that balances. but more importantly, he s never troduced a budget that stops raising the debt. not only does the president not pay back a penny of debt in any budget he s ever introduced, i don t mean a one-year window or five years or 10 years. i mean 75-year window. he increases that debt more and more each year. he believes, again i m not trying to say anything that he wouldn t tell you himself, mr. speaker. he believes that what our goals should be as america is not to actually pay the debt back as we try to do in our budget, taking that green line green line down to zero, but what our goal should be is to slow the rise of the debt below the rate of growth of our economy. what does that mean? in practical terms it means if you have a credit card, your goal should not be to pay your credit card back. in fact your goal shouldn t even be to pay the interest. what your goal should be is to make sure that as that balance on your credit card continues to rise, it rises slower than whatever your income is rising to be. here that. if your credit card balances, in fact they get higher and higher and higher, but yet if your goal as a family is to keep that rise from going any faster, then your paycheck is rising. it s a crazy philosophy, mr. speaker. absolutely no family in america shares that philosophy. that s what the president said on george self testify. that s what he believes today. that s what he told the republican conference when we met together this week. if our plan is to balance, the president s plan says balanced approach. that means he wants tax increases and spending reduction, that s the definition of a balanced approach, but it s an approach that never balances. our friends in the senate have not passed a budget for four years, but it looks like they are at least trying this year. aapplaud them for that. this is an editorial from the wall street journal this morning, mr. speaker, that talks about that outline of the senate budget that was shared with america yesterday. the wall street journal says this the bill manages the unique achievement of offering no net nondefense spending cuts and no entitlement reform worth the name, while proposing to raise $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue in such a way that would ruin the prospects for bipartisan reform. spending, mr. speaker. spending is the problem. the problem we have is spending, and what the wall street journal observes is that the budget that s being proposed over in the united states senate and again i applaud them for beginning that process. the law requires them to do it every single year. they have not done it for four. i hope they ll do it this year. we passed the no budget no peso if they don t do it they no ay, so if they don t do it they won t get paid. a bill with no net spending cuts, no entitlement reform, and tax increases of $1 trillion, so says the wall street journal. democrats admit to raising taxes by $975 billion over 10 years by increasing fairness and efficiency in the tax code. ms. murray provides few details, however. the real tax increase is closer to $1.5 trillion, but because the budget owe mitts $480 billion in unspecified taxes to replace sequestration and $100 billion to offset the cost of new stimulus. new stimulus. spending, mr. speaker is the problem. the house budget puts us on a track to in the just a balanced budget within 10 years but paying back every penny of debt that we borrow from americans and the world. and the senate budget has yet to pass committee, remains to be seen if they pass it in the senate, but the proposal is to increase spending and increase taxes. we re not up here bickering about what how to name a post office, mr. speaker, or whether or not we ought to meet on tuesdays or thursdays or fridays. we re up here arguing about whether the future of the republic, whether opportunity for our children and grandchildren lies in a future where we have paid back all of your debts or lies in a future where you allow those debts to rise forever. that is a legitimate discussion. only in washington. there s not a kitchen table around the country where that would be the discussion that we d have. i read from the wall street journal, i know there are some folks back home that says, rob, the wall street journal, that s a conservative publication. what are the liberal publications saying? i have a copy of the washington post in my office. that is no conservative rag. this is what the official editorial from the washington post said this morning about the senate budget. partisan in tone and complacent in substance, it scores points against republicans and reassures the party s liberal base but deepens the senators commitment to an unsustainable policy agenda. they go on, the washington post says, it s on the issue of entitlements that the democrats document really disappoints. there is literally nothing, not a word suggested of trimming social security. whether greater means testing or more realistic inflation adjustments or of disability benefits. the document s fuzzy call for $275 billion in health savings is $125 billion less than the number president obama has floated. there s plenty of excoreiation of the g.o.p. premium support plan, the washington post says, but there s no explanation of how the democrats would pay for their promise, not a hint of the cost savings reforms that would extend medicare s life without embracing the g.o.p. plan. washington post, it scores points but it deepens an unsustainable policy agenda. there s literally not a word suggested of reforming entitlements. it s less ambitious than even president obama s agenda. it excoriates the g.o.p. s plan, but provides no explanation of a democrat alternative. and it closes with this, mr. speaker, in short this documents gives voters no reason to believe that democrats have a viable plan for or even a responsible public assessment of the country s long-term fiscal predicament. it s the washington post talking about the democrat plan in the united states senate. in short, this document and be clear, mr. speaker, the first budget to be produced by the budget in four years, remains to be seen if they can actually produce it but at least they re suggesting they re going to produce one, and the washington post assessment of that plan is that this document gives voters no reason to believe that democrats have a viable plan for or even a responsible public assessment of the country s long-term fiscal predicament. mr. speaker, that s what we re talking about here. this isn t a bunch of children bickering about who gets to take home the ball. we re talking about whether or not opportunity will exist a decade, two decades, three decades from now. there s not a family in america that believes they can borrow in perpetuity without consequences. there are terrible, terrible consequences. and let s just think and i ll be first to say, mr. speaker, i ve been suspicious of newspaper editorials. i don t believe the newspapers always get it right. i i have a quote from the hearing that was going on yesterday. senator mike crapo is over on the senate side. he was questioning the democratic staffers who put together the budget. serving on the budget committee, mr. speaker, but what happens is budgets are very technical documents. when you craft one they take all the committee counsels and they put them in front of the table in front of the members and they get to ask the staffers who got to prepare all the complicated numbers. it s a give and take for the folks who prepared the documents. this is what senator crapo asked. whether through taxes or spending reductions that are claimed in the budget, what percentage of those are achieved in year one? this is what he said. i m not asking whether you re raising taxes or cutting spending. what i m asking is, what are you doing in year one to begin immediately to put this country on the path to paying its debts? the staffer says this. committee staffer says there are spending savings in year one, but in total it s about no in the first year. it s about what? senator crapo asks. it is no in the first year because there are spending savings pardon me and spending costs. you thinking that sounds like washington double speak, mr. speaker. well, senator crapo thought so too. so i didn t understand you. it s zero in the first year? staffer says, yes, sir, on net, sir. senator crapo says, that confirms my worry. understand that. here s a budget that is increasing taxes by $1.8 rillion, increasing taxes by 1.8 trillion and changes our deficit for next year by nothing. it does not put us one dollar closer to a balanced budget. it does not put us one dollar closer to stemming the rise in debt. taxes going up in this budget by $1.8 trillion and they want to spend it all as it s coming in such that they change nothing about our fiscal condition in year one. it s one of those back loaded budget, mr. speaker, we hear so much about. it was wimpy, i think in the popeye cartoon growing up, i d gladly pay you tomorrow for a hamburger today. it s what s going on here. i d gladly make the tough decisions 10 years from now if only you allow me to keep spending today. mr. speaker, that s the mentality that got us here. you can t measure budgets what they do 10 years from now. you have to measure what they re doing today. i am not alone saying this. this is president obama. president obama in 2008, he said, adding $4 trillion to the national debt was irresponsible and unpatriotic. i want to read you the whole quote, mr. speaker. he said, the problem is it s the way the bush administration has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the bank of china in the name of our children driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents, and then number 43 added $4 trillion by his lone some. it was $5 lonesome. was $5 trillion added up to president bush. president bush added $4. president obama goes on, so we have nearly $9 trillion that we are going to have to pay back. $30,000 for every man, woman and child. that s irresponsible. that s unpatriotic. president obama rightly noting that during eight years of the bush administration our federal ebt rose from $5 trillion to $9 trillion. through the first four years of the obama administration, it ose from $10.6 trillion to $16.6 trillion. $6 trillion in four years. president bush, $4 trillion in eight years. president obama calls it irresponsible and unpatriotic. the president is running up debts twice as fast. and since he has been in office has produced not one budget lan that would stop that rise. in case you couldn t follow it, mr. speaker, i blew it up in red because i didn t want it to be missed at all. the national debt under esident obama has risen $6.1 trillion, from $10.6 trillion when he was sworn into office in january of 2009, to $16.6 trillion today. a 57% increase. it was irresponsible and unpatriotic, the president said, to increase the deficit 4 trillion over eight years. $6.1 trillion for the president over four. i say this, mr. speaker, because we re not supposed to be arguing about this. i mean, it s so frustrating. you re here in your freshman year. i m here just two years in the job. we didn t come here to find out who to blame. we came here to make a difference. tell me what that is. tell me what on the mandatory side of the ledger folks want to begin to reduce, mr. speaker. they want to reform what they want to do to guarantee that medicare and social security survive for another generation. i will partner with them to do it. not one budget that has saved not one dollar in five years of this white house. not even a budget plan from the senate in the last four. i don t want to tell the american people who to blame, mr. speaker. i want to tell the american people who got together and worked with one another to solve the problem, but what the president knew was a problem, a problem he called irresponsible and unpatriotic while he was running for president, he seems to have forgotten all about after getting elected president. here he is in 2009, mr. speaker. in 2009 the president believed that a failure to control the deficit would make it harder for the economy to grow. how often have we been on the floor talking about jobs, mr. speaker? and this is the part that gets me excited. i don t mean excited because i m happy about it, mr. speaker. i m excited because i m energized about it. we want to balance budgets so we can pass on a more prosperous america to our children and our grandchildren. the president knew that. he said this newspaper article bloomberg, february, 2009. president obama wants to reduce the deficit because he s concerned that over time federal borrowing will make it harder for the u.s. economy to grow and create jobs, said the official speaking on the condition of anonymity. you unit be anonymous about the fact that growing debt will curtail job opportunities in the future. of course we know it is. all all know that to be. every economist