kill a huge, failing banks. we created an industry funded dissolution fund. if a financial company. -- fails its shareholders it will be wiped out. assets will be sold off. after that if further funding is needed its counterparts at other financial companies will be assessed a fee to cover the cost of unwinding the firm. this budget eliminates the dissolution find and puts taxpayers on the hook for bringing back to big to fail. so much for in the corporate welfare. i tell you, i am going to a yield some time to my colleagues. before i do that i'm going to mention that freddie and fannie are a problem. we need to bring substantial capital into the secondary market. this budget resolution does it too quickly, and everybody who knows anything about mortgages

by screaming that they are binding it down in an irresponsible manner. i yield now one minute -- of minute and 30 seconds to my colleague. .. the high employment, all the social costs are trying to hold the republic together, they are basically handing their toxic waste to fannie mae, freddie mac, fha, you name it, and we are on the hook.

just one case, one case that was prosecuted cause goldman sachs to pay hundreds of millions of dollars, hundreds of millions. that is just one. so i want to support the gentlelady's amendment strongly. if we don't have prosecution we will never get restitution and i think that the only way we get it is using the instrumentality that we have and when we think that we can recover fines, we can recover assets. i want to go after a fiat. i want some of the seven mansions that these fellows have and if they let the statute of limitations run out the american people will never be made whole. so i want to say to the gentlelady congratulations on your amendment. every red-blooded american who wants their money back should support this amendment and we can help solve the deficit problem. i yield back my remaining time to the gentlelady. >> thank you so much gentlelady. this amendment restores the watchdog function. you remember the stock market crash in 1929 ushered in the

great depression. restore the budget neutral funding for the consumer protection bureau, restored a debt panel for too big to fail and re-creates the path to revitalize the mortgage market, and i yield back my time. >> alright, mr. garrett is recognized. mr. garrett. seven and a half minutes. >> so, just sitting here first of all from a historical point of view i make note that we are now on amendment number 16 and i guess it is a yogi berra used to say it is déjà vu all over again. as i remember i guess i'm one of the longest serving members except maybe for -- on this committee and when we are in the majority before it was the exact same circumstance. exact same circumstance of every single minute they came to the other side the two links. tings. they increase spending and they

put additional taxes on individuals and businesses and they run down the 16 amendments we looked at here tonight over the last several hours we did the exact same thing as the other side, increase spending and increase taxes on individuals and corporations. to the point on the legislation before us, you undercut your own argument the gentlelady when you started out by quoting the commission which said there was widespread failure by regulators exactly, the very same regulators that you now want to give even more money to were the ones who were put in place before that were supposed to stop all the fraud that was going on in the financial community. they failed their job. and now what you say is, as with the last 15 amendments, what do we do about that? we give them even more money. let's run down some of the various agencies you want to give more money to. via d.c., the securities and exchange commission. was that they that were supposed to be responsible for finding

the madoff situation? did they? despite the fact that year after year after year after year after year they were told about it and they disregarded it? i know the gentle calm from new jersey has people in their backyard who were affected by the madoff situation. imagine if they were sitting in this room right now. those who have not get in a single dime back from the money losses there. imagined that they were some of the members who now that's the but the trusty picard is going after and want to clawback some of the money that they are ask a got over the years and now what do you suggest be done in that situation? to go to the very same regulators who should have stopped that situation and do what? reward them for their failures of the past. i can't believe that. only in washington d.c. when you have a failed institution, failed regulators, failed administrators, what do you do with them? you reward them. he give them even more money. a lot of you on the other side of the aisle and i know most on our side of the aisle have been

in a private business in one way, shape or form. is that how you would run your private is this that you would say we have a unit that is failing? would have a going to do with that? i think we will give them higher salary more authority and a bigger budget next year. that is it with you are suggesting to do with the sec that despite the fact there was an ig report that says you should be doing abc and d. they will out there is a reform that should be done. the gentlelady knows because i know she serves on the committee they have not been implemented yet. we have not been reports that do but these things complied but what did the gentlelady suggest we do with them? they haven't got a working properly so we should do what? let's give them more money. >> well the gentleman yield? will the gentleman yield? >> i don't have the time to you. actually at this point i will yield to my colleague who wishes to speak on this as well. >> thank you mr. garrett. thank you mr. chairman. here we are again, amendment

after amendment, argument after argument. something goes wrong, the first reaction is to run out in a knee-jerk way and throw more money and more bureaucrats at the problem. ronald reagan has been invoked here several times by my friends on the other side of the round, and i will associate with mr. cole's earlier remarks that i don't know if these folks would ever vote for mr. reagan or if they support his policies or ever would have. but i want to associate with mr. reagan right now, paraphrased one of his quotes. he said if we are not careful, if we don't actively watch, monitor and control, this federal government, then we will be sitting around in our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was like to be an american, and

quite simply that is a conversation i refuse to have. so we disagree about this. so we fight. for capitalism. is capitalism imperfect? absolutely and that is why we don't favor no regulation. we favor smart regulation. is capitalism the best system the world has ever seen to raise the condition of humanity? of the person, of the individual? absolutely. this amendment, just like the dodd-frank law itself, takes us down the wrong road and it distinguishes limits, hinders the ability for capitalism to prosper. i know a little bit about the sec and this new consumer protection bureau because for eight years i regulated the

financial services in the state of indiana. and the fact of the matter is, there were hundreds of financial regulators in place when the market collapsed in 2008 including dozens that were supposed to rain and aig. franken this amendment missed the point that more funding and more regulators do not mean better, higher regulation. in fact it is quite the opposite. in fact the states do a much better job being the retail cop on the beat when it comes to these problems. and we see things, we saw things than we did things we before the sec ever could. it is the nameless and faceless bureaucracy that so often gets in the way. the sec for example is an agency that has grown 20% in 2008, more than 3800 full-time employees who worked at at the sec at the end of 2010 with an average compensation and benefits package of about $188,000 per

employee. the president's budget request 1.4 billion in 2012, an increase of 53% from 2008 levels and on top of this, dodd-frank request doubling the size of the sec's widget from current levels which would increase it to $2.25 billion in fiscal year 2015. your bureaucrats do not equal better results. for the cftc, the president's budget requesting 82% increase or 132 million over the 2011 level of 169 million. we don't need this amendment my colleagues. i urge a vote against it, and i yield back. >> the gentlelady from wisconsin, five minutes to close. >> thank you so much. nobody in their entire second -- six and a half minutes addressed bringing back of too big to fail. i guess when they said we were

going to tax corporations they were referring to my suggestion that we ought to restore the industry funded funds to wind them down. this is the most ridiculous argument i have heard in my entire life. to say that if you have got unsolved murders you ought to defund the police department, unsolved cancers you ought to defund the hospitals and let me tell you. under president clinton, we started deregulating that very cultured of we have got too many bureaucrats that allowed this train wreck to occur. we need to put the cops back on the street and yes, they need to do their job. we do not need to provide further lax regulations and expect to get anything other than another financial crisis. i am sorry, i wanted to yield time. >> the time for the gentlelady has expired. the question offered by the gentlelady from wisconsin, all

those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. an opinion of the chair the no's have it. a roll call vote is requested. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] >> anyone else who wishes to vote or change their vote? is not the clerk will report the votes.

>> i apologize. [roll call] mr. chairman on that boat, the ayes or 15, the nose or 23. >> ayes been 15, and is being 23 the amendment does not agree to. next we have got ms. cantor. is that right? mick's after the clerk will designate the amendment. >> amendment designated as number 17 offered by ms. captor to prioritize the investigation and prosecution of financial crimes. >> the gentlelady from ohio is recognized for six and half minutes. >> my amendment will assure that the fbi can fully investigate why corporate crimes related to the securities and mortgage

fraud that caused the great recession, destroy property values across the country and ballooned the deficit is trillions of dollars of wall street losses and the outflow from that were shifted to federal accounts. strength in the investigation and prosecution by the fbi will recover billions of dollars to the u.s. treasury and asset recovery, fines and damages and or then pay for these agents. nonetheless this amendment also provides sufficient revenues in the interim to cover agent hirings by reducing and eliminating tax breaks and corporate welfare for the big five oil companies exxon mobil i exxon mobil who paid no taxes, tax earmarks for activities such as corporate jets, certain tariff earmarks like imported snow globes, tax loopholes that encourage outsourcing of jobs and tax breaks for millionaires. democrats and republicans are both committed to deficit reduction. but democrats object to how republicans are reducing the deficit. you balance the budget on the

backs of working and unemployed families. we believe free writers like ag-oil companies and millionaires should pay their fair share. the republican growth budget protects billions of dollars in tax breaks to oil companies for example in the way that they book their profits, tax breaks that send american jobs overseas, and then cut critical funding for law enforcement activities such as going after those that do damage to the republic. we reject those priorities. the fbi has testified before congress that the current financial crisis towards the saving and loan crisis as financial institutions have reduced their assets by more than $1 trillion compared to the estimated 160 million lost during the savings and loan crisis. the fbi because of its crippling personnel limitations because most asians were shifted to terrorism pursuit, has been unable to dedicate sufficient fbi agents to prosecute these crimes and the criminals know that they want to run out the

clock on the statute of limitations. the fbi identified the mortgage fraud epidemic and congressional testimony as early as september september 2004 and they have so few white-collar crime specialist available that the fbi was able to shift only 120 special agents part-time to mortgage the security fraud cases, less than one-eighth the agents that responded adequately to the huge but far smaller things in -- savings and loan crisis. given the magnitude of the trillion dollar financial crisis that triggered the recession in 2008, the fbi would need no less than 1000 agents to prosecute securities and mortgage fraud perpetrated by the most powerful individuals across this country. this congress should bring the fbi and its prosecutorial staffing to the necessary level to fully investigate these complex -- complex financial crimes and bring to justice those who have committed these

crimes. robust prosecution will more than pay for itself and will result in billions of dollars of deficit reduction through recovery, restitution and asset confiscation. i would like to yield a minute and a half to my dear colleague from texas mr. doggett. >> i thank the gentlelady. the last important amendment from our colleague from wisconsin, this amendment recognizes that the severe recession for which we are still recovering was not an accident of nature, was not nearly a part of some ups and downs of the business cycle, is not the product of paying teachers too much or assuring too much retirement security for our seniors but was as the financial crisis inquiry commission reported at the beginning of this year, the result of greed and wrongdoing and sufficient regulation. i find it nothing short of amazing that, in their efforts to weaken law enforcement on

wall street in the continual resolution that denied their republican colleagues have relied on the failures of law enforcement administration under the bush administration as a justification for doing nothing about law enforcement administration now. it has been pointed out that the securities and exchange commission did not do its job, and i couldn't agree more. let's remember who is heading the securities and exchange commission. our former colleague, the former head of the republican policy committee, mr. chris cox, went in with the same attitude we heard from our republican colleagues here tonight about regulation of these wall street giants, went over to the sec and the attitude of permissiveness they are and at these other regulatory agencies, the attitude of permissiveness and the bush treasury department where mr. paulson discovered these problems only after he appeared here one thursday night

to declare apocalypse tomorrow must we joined in some giant unnecessary bailout, that is the attitude -- that is a problem we had at that time and we are now trying to do something about it. this amendment is specific to the issue of law enforcement. trying to ensure that the fbi is out there. it doesn't make any difference whether it was an individual betting gauged in mortgage fraud in order to get a house. they should be prosecuted but this was more because of an individual here or there falsifying an application. this was a pattern throughout much of this industry to make fraudulent and no disclosure type applications and we need to investigate it and do something about it and i plot the gentlewoman for her efforts. >> i thank the gentleman. i would like to yield 30 seconds to congressman pascrell. >> i support the gentlelady.

the amount of the first -- in recent years between 2001 and 2008 that these people got slapped on the wrist. the penalties that the gentlelady from ohio is talking about is combined with simply the price of doing business. that is what self-policing has brought. wall street, aig became the poster child to deferred prosecution. i rest my case. >> the time of the gentlelady has expired. we now record nice mr. garrett in opposition of the amendment for seven and a half and it's. >> and i thank the gentleman. i know there were several people who would like to speak on this. before you i guess i will start right again on the last amendment where i said i noted the first 16 bills was running to the form with regard to the same pattern which was the solution to epidemic that's problem is increase spending and raise taxes and as you heard now we are up to amendment number 17, same pattern increase spending and raise taxes. and to the point, before you get

into this issue to the gentlelady from wisconsin on the last 10 seconds on this, she said no one answered her question with regard to too big to fail with regard to the previous amendment. exactly. prior to, prior to the activity of last year under dodd-frank, too big to fail was an implicit guarantee that was out there that there was an idea that the government might step in and bail out these behemoth corporations of wall street and the like. i thought they shouldn't be bailed out and most on our side of the aisle but they should be shouldn't be bailed out by with did we get from your side of the aisle and what did we get from chairman frank? chairman frank? we got dodd-frank which takes the implicit in makes it explicit. now we have in statute that these businesses are actually too big to fail him the federal government will now step in essentially to bail them out and that will codify dodd-frank and will cost the taxpayers literally billions of dollars more and to your last issue to

the devolution fun. that is the problem with the last piece of legislation in the same problem with this piece of legislation as well. their artery legislators out there that are supposed to be doing the job and we would like them to be doing so whether it is the cftc, the fdic and the like are go now you have created the cfpb. these are charged with making sure that the industries are regulated in a proper manner and if they are not doing the job than we need to have the a proper oversight for them. with that i will first of all yield to mr. mulvaney for such time as he may consume. >> thank you mr. garrett. before you start mr. doggett when you are telling the story about the sec oversight coming out of the republican party i had to chuckle a little bit because it reminded me the story of one of the other regulators who fell asleep at the wheel during 2008 which is the head of the new york fed. who is now your secretary of treasury, so i think that both parties probably --. >> would the gentleman being kind enough to yield three seconds? >> i don't think there is time

to yield. what we are trying to do is essentially as mr. garrett said his raise taxes to get more money to the fbi in more money to the doj. the president came out and instead of the rollbackspenve wo lay off 4000 or 5000 fbi agents and that was supposed to stun people that we would have to do that. personally i was done we hired that many people in the meantime. we hired for 5000 new fbi agents in 2006 what were we thinking? i guess we were thinking we didn't need to pay for it because all we did was borrow the money. the doj budget is up dramatically. almost 50% in the last couple of years. this includes the grant program. you are trying to find a grant program where money went to fashion shows. i have to read this. fashion shows pool parties and doughnut eating contest. that is what you want to raise taxes to do. that is where money is going. this is the kind of stuff that makes people that come wonder what it is we are doing up here. after having been here three months i'm not sure i know what to tell them and i can certainly

tell them we shouldn't be doing this and i yield back the belt balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields to mr. aiken for as much time as he may consume. >> having been your little while i think it may be helpful to just refresher many merry -- memory on the historic record here because as i recall, when we went into this crisis it was connected with real estate and mortgage is. specifically connected because a law had been created sometime ago through freddie and fannie to give loans to people who couldn't afford to pay their loans. so what we were doing was we were saying to somebody yeah maybe you don't have a job that would allow you to make that size mortgage payment but we are going to make a loan to you anyway and we were requiring tanks to make those loans. that was done under freddie and fannie. that it may going on for long time but we increase the rate of the loans that you can't afford to pay. that's -- as long as the real estate market was going up that

looked okay for the time being. then you go to september 11, 2003 and a great oracle of conservative thought, "the new york times," and define president bush of all people asking congress for authority to regulate freddie and fannie because he saw an economic train wreck coming. data september 11, 2003. he asked us for authority to fix freddie and fannie before it lieu up and what did we do? we passed it in the house and it was killed by democrats in the senate in that same article has barney frank saying there is no problem with freddie and fannie. that is the history of what is going on. so to some degree, it is okay for us to throw rocks at regulators and this and that in certainly the credit rating agencies that set everybody's triple a wonderful when the loans were of course terrible but some of the blame does lie with us here in congress and let's not be shy about accepting some of that for making policies to force banks to make loans that don't work.

i don't even think that is very compassionate. by thank you and i yield back. i yield the remaining time to -. >> for as much time as he may consume. >> again in my last job, i worked very closely with the fbi they do great work. we worked on cases together. we tried not to duplicate each other's work. we tried not to overlap and it was a good relationship. the states can do a lot of this, and quite honestly, and i think the fbi will tell you, at least in my jurisdiction, the state can do it better. we are on the ground. we are the retail cop on the beach when it comes to these very things. let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. the baby being a nice, good, strong free-market society to live in. also i would like to remind the members why we are really here.

even if you really believe that the federal government needs to do everything for everybody to solve every one of our problems, look at this chart. i haven't seen anyone in this room all day dispute the fact illustrated by this chart. 2025, 2030 are dead will consume 100% of everything we produce. that is if the government confiscated everything in the form of taxes, we still couldn't get off this rollercoaster. we have got to make some serious choices and we have to make small savings. we have to reform the drivers of our debt and i urge my colleagues not to lose sight of that and i yield back. >> the gentlelady from ohio too close. >> i just want to say to the jump in from indiana that the

upward path you are sewing on that graph, that actually represents the growing profit of wall street at the expense of the american people, and the individual who chaired, who was the president's chief of staff, is president bush's chief of staff in the deal was made to bail out goldmans, the former director of the goldmans london office, mr. joshua bolten, he was sitting right there in the catbird seat in the white house and the secretary of treasury was mr. paulson who was the ceo of goldman. that was during and republican administration. i'd like to yield my remaining time to congresswoman moore of wisconsin and congressman ryan of ohio. speedwell i can tell you that freddie and fannie were the to take these mortgages from underwriters, razors mortgage brokers and credit raging -- credit rating agencies. somebody needs to go to jail. and it is not necessarily these people who had the mortgages.

>> the time of the gentlelady has expired. the question is agreeing to the moment offered by the gentlelady from a higher. those in favor say aye. those opposed the suppose they know. the no's have it. a recorded vote is requested. the clerk will report the roll. [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

>> anybody else was to change their vote or was to vote? the clerk will report. >> mr. chairman, on that vote, the ayes are 15 and the nose or 23. >> there've been 15 ayes and 23 knows the amendment is not agree to. >> mr. chairman? i was just wondering, since she pronounces my name like i'm two people do i get to votes? [laughter] >> said they know because they are hyphenated. mr. schiller i believe is up next year. hang on. shuler number 18, the clerk will designate. >> amendment designated offered by mr. shuler, achieving fiscal sustainability. >> thank you mr. chairman. the gentlelady is recognized for

six and half minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i actually one off of a small business committee to be on this committee. a committee that probably had lots of jurisdiction, but at least one thing was for certain. we actually worked together. i don't think there was a single piece of legislation that let the subcommittee or committee last congress that didn't have 100% bipartisan support. we should be ashamed of ourselves in the way that we kind of go through this process. i have looked at the list and i'd may be wrong, but i think i have been the only person to actually vote opposite of their own party. the only single person on this entire committee. now, saying that, we have to do what is right for our country and yes, look, i will get both sides and people have heartfelt issues in what we have to do tomb of our country forward and sometimes we don't always agree. i think we can be a lot more

respectful when this committee. i think that is part of what makes this institution what it is today. but i would be embarrassed if my kids were watching some of the comments so i think we should work together and i think i have an amendment here that would suggest that. it is a framework that we can go by. i truly believe that at the end of the day, this is where we are going to be. looking at the fiscal commission that the fiscal commission brought forward, having both republican and democrat support, alan simpson, from the republican side, erskine bowles from the democrat side and then we had a hearing here. i think there was to republicans and two democrats that actually or were perceived to be at a hearing, and my simple question, is there anything out there that everyone kind of agrees to or

would be the best piece of legislation you think we could ultimately get to the final day? and to a person of the death of the commission. now i didn't go into full detail on the deficit commission but i did take some framework. within that framework, this would be the largest deficit cut in history by 2014, the largest. it would cut the deficit by $4 trillion over the next 10 years. it would stabilize the debt and maintain a debt to racial of 60% of gdp by 2024. would return to 2008 spending levels, will reduce the deficit to a 2.3% of gdp in four years, will reduce the size of government. it will achieve deficit reduction with two-thirds spending and want their tax reform, something we all agree we have to change or tax reform in this country.

everything being on the table, that is discretionary spending both security and non-security, tax reform, entitlement reform, other mandatory policies and process reforms. i truly believe that the end of the day. the likelihood of me getting a single vote decides my own, i am probably going to be the only one to vote on it. but i truly believe at the end of the day we have to do what is right. and placing politics in front of our country, and this is for both sides, this is not pointing fingers at one side. i didn't get in this game of politics. i wasn't involved in politics before he came to washington. the closest i ever got was coming to a couple of fund-raisers. but we can do better than this. and i do believe that the end of the day, and i certainly believe our chairman and ranking member

have acted in complete utmost integrity and respect for one another and this process the way they have handled it. i commend both of them for the attitude and the way they have put forth the legislation. this is going to be hard, guys. it is going to be difficult votes that we are having to vote on. and part of this is just going to be procedure that we are going through. probably at the end of the day it is probably going to be something more like this piece of legislation than anything we have seen so far. and i'm just asking you, if you have got it, if you want to drop the politics and we really want to get to something that we can move forward on -- pimco jobs the u.s. treasury because they don't believe that members of congress are willing to do what is right. the largest treasury bondholder in the world dropped their u.s. treasury, dropped it. because they don't think we have the guts, nor do we have the bipartisanship that it is going

to take to get this done. and i just want us to put our country's interests first, and not politics. i guess i will yield now to the ranking member, mr. van hollen. >> i yield back. >> i will yield -- i will take time in opposition and give two minutes to mr. van hollen. >> thank you, thank you. first of all, first of all i want to thank my friend and colleague, mr. shuler for offering this amendment and for all his constructive input. and i look forward to continuing

to work with you and frankly with all of our colleagues at the end of the day to come up with a balanced approach, and i also want to take this opportunity to commend the commission. we had erskine bowles and allen simpsons on the committee behind closed doors and had a great discussion. i think that their work, including many on this committee have contributed greatly to the discussion and i don't think we would be having this discussion right now frankly if it hadn't been for the the bipartisan commission. i certainly support the spirit of this amendment. i am not sure i can stick to every single benchmark that they have got in here. on exactly the timetable that is presented and for that reason, i am going to reluctantly oppose the amendment but i am going to say to my friend, again, thank you and they think that you have divided a good example to all of us about how we should work together going forward.

>> i too want to thank my friend from north carolina. for his sincerity on this issue. i served on the fiscal commission. at the greatest respect for erskine bowles. he is one of my favorite democrats, and i hope i don't hurt them by saying that. i said one of my favorite democrats. [laughter] and allen and everybody else. here's the issue. by the way, this exceeds the deficit reduction targets and the fiscal commission so we are already surpassing that inch mark. point number two, i do believe the commission did not hit this goal of one third taxes and two-thirds spending cuts. if you look at the way the baseline was treated on the commission i think it was far heavier weighted towards tax increase of the commissioner and i maybe have a little difference of opinion on how measurement was done here is the issue i have with this.

all of the spending stuff, when you say one third tax reform, what that means the in numbers is you need on top of president obama's $1.5 trillion you need another 2 trillion-dollar tax increase, and to me i have -- sincerely believe that is going to hurt the economy, so we believe tax reform for sure, we are calling for tax reform and here. tax reform helps produce more economic growth if done the right way and that does bring us revenue, but if you are targeting tax reform to hit such a high revenue level then you are really cranking up taxes, and if you hit the level that they are talking about here, that is about a 3% of gdp tax increase and you cannot in my opinion fix this problem by getting this economy with that kind of a tax increase. we need three things. spending cuts, spending reforms.

by the way for all the talk here about discretionary spending, you don't get entitlements under control there is no room for any of that spending. number three we need economic growth. we are doing that in this. we are going for economic growth and so i believe putting sort of an artificial targeting here on the tax increase i, doing it on the top of my head that is a 2 trillion-dollar tax increase, think that is too much lower for the economy to bear and the last point i would simply say is we don't really have a residue problem in this country. we have got a spending problem and that is where i really think we have got to focus in on. with great respect and i appreciate the gentleman sincerity, i also urge a no vote on this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. i will give the gentleman a minute to close. >> i thank both the gentlemen for their sincerity and i do believe it is sincere. i think there are different ways to look at it and on the tax side of it it is lowering the

rate in broadening the base. it is spreading out over a much larger percentage. as you well know, less than 50% of the people are paying 100% of taxes in this country so it does broaden the base. we pick winners and losers when it comes to things we can develop in our taxes and i think that is the area which you are seeing some discrepancies. i have kind have been through, it seems like i've been at all financial levels in my life and i think i have been blessed because of that but i do see whether it be growing up and my dad was a mailman or playing in the nfl there is a big discrepancy difference in income but, sometimes they didn't need some of those deductions that i was allowed, and i just think as opposed to picking winners and losers that is the way we can create the revenue that we can over the long-haul, and you know, if we want to put one of those backend, then we just increase the rate a little bit. because i think this would drive

the rate and the corporate rate to well under 30%, somewhere around the 24226% overall rate. if you want to have those deductions that can you just increase the rate, so i would hope that i would get one more vote on this so i yield back. >> the time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the no's have it. i ask for a recorded vote. >> the gentleman is transfer your recorded vote. [roll call]

[roll call] >> just one minute to explain my vote. i agree wholeheartedly with mr. schiller that you know, we did too many things in this town partially, and i sincerely appreciate what he is trying to do and accomplish here because it is going to take both parties to not only get control of our debt and our deficit spending and i would like to see more bipartisanship on this committee i know that the chairman has laid out a plan and a path in his legit and i support that, but i do want to continue to work with mr. schiller in the future and hope that we can find a common ground so at this point i'm going to vote no.

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

>> i'm going to vote residence because they think you sent the right signal and saying we have all got to work together to achieve these goals. >> mr. van hollen present. >> i too and going to vote present and add to the notion of a fork in this but also because i am very impressed with the work of the commission and it would be different reasons than paul ryan, whether we need all these benchmarks but i do think everything has to be on the table. and the notion of the revenue, tax expenditures, spending in both defense and nondiscretionary as well as entitlement. i think all of that is helpful and thank you. [roll call]

[roll call] [inaudible] [laughing] [roll call] >> mr. chairman i would like to explain and take a minute. the commission on fiscal responsibility establishes a basic rentable that deficit reduction should not increase -- inequality or hurt the disadvantage. the rhine plan. >> wait, what are we doing? we are voting now.

>> the gave the privileged explain the vote and i want to explain my vote. >> to sentence is. >> i've got one sentence left. [laughter] >> the chairman -- the chairman unveiled "the wall street journal" op-ed charges a different course. >> gosh, come on. what are you doing? [laughter] >> given that his --. >> what is your vote? >> present. >> okay, ryan. [laughter] >> i'm sorry, mr. honda? >> he said present. let's don't give them another chance to speak.

[laughter] >> i've got some things i would like to share. [laughter] i'm going to make it simple. i'm voting yes. i'm voting for the amendment. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] >> mr. chairman? i would like to be recorded present, please. >> please report the vote. >> do you want to change her vote? >> no, don't. >> mr. chairman on that vote, the ayes or two in the nose or

23. >> to ayes, 23 knows, the amendment is does not agree to. >> and 13 present. >> mr. chairman? >> we whereon to mr. van hollen. >> amendment designated as number 20 offered by mr. van hollen, point of order against consideration of a budget without a ppo certification. >> then jumped a menace recognized for six and map and half minutes. >> i once take a moment at the outset to respond to some of the discussion we have had because as we saw in the discussion on mr. shuler's amendment, there was opposition to your site which we heard all day with respect to the provision in the

fiscal commission's recommendation that you have got to have a balanced approach. we are not arguing that you shouldn't be making cuts to the program. the general accountability office just made some recommendations. we think that is right. we have argued that you have to have a balance approach going forward, and our amendments have presented a choice into the extent we talked about raising revenues to pay for things like making sure we maintain the medicare guarantee for seniors, we have said we want to go back to the same rights that were in place on the top income earners in the clinton administration. we said we wanted to get rid of some of the subsidies in the tax code including for oil companies and companies that ship jobs overseas so let's be clear when we we are talking about revenues, we are talking about that class of revenues. in fact we specifically proposed that we not do anything as part of this budget process to increase taxes on middle income americans, and for every example

of spending, ms. spending in the budget, and there are undeniably some that were mentioned come you can find tech-support. let me just give you some examples of tech support that opinion bills that went through recently. christmas tree lights, ski poles, duck and goose decoys, yard ornaments depicting school mascots, of an top ranges. these are all tax fork in the code. those just happen to have all been offered by republican members of congress and their been similar offered by democratic members of congress. but let's be very clear that there's a lot of that jump in the tax code and we are talking about priorities. we are talking about making everybody pay their fair share and getting all that special interest junk out of there. now what this amendment does is address the very important question of jobs, because they think all of us in our different

ways want to have a budget that make sure that this country has a strong economy and that we grow jobs in the future. and when the bipartisan fiscal commission made its recommendation, they distinguished very clearly about the importance of putting this on a long-term path to predictable deficit reduction, but they specifically warned about deep immediate cuts because of its impact on what? jobs and the economy, and i specifically read here from the fiscal commission report, bipartisan report, quote, in order to avoid shocking the fragile economy, the commission recommends waiting until 2012 to begin enacting programmatic spending cuts in waiting until fiscal year 2013 before make a large nominal cuts. yet you can begin making programmatic cuts to take place over a period of time, but no

too deep immediate cuts because of the impact on jobs. not want to go back to the first slide here. the first one before that, please. because you know, we heard the chairman talk about a projection that was made by the heritage foundation regarding job creation -- jobs created by this budget and i just want to make it absolutely clear that this was the job creation trend that the same organization are addicted would happen at the time of the bush 2001/2003 tax cuts. in fact, as we know, at the end of the eight-year period there was a net loss of private sector jobs. now i want to go to the next chart that shows predictions made by a number of different individuals and groups with respect to the impact of the immediate deep cuts right now. and you have the chairman of the federal reserve in testimony before the house said that jobs

would be lost if you took everything that has been proposed in h.r. 1 all at once. you have mark zandi who of course was the adviser to the me came presidential campaign. 700,000. goldman sachs, need look no matter what you say about goldman sachs the reality is they do know a little bit about money. they have taken off a lot of taxpayer money. i think we can all agree that no one -- but my point is here, they are talking to their investors. they are talking about the fact that if these actions happen, you lose 800,000 jobs and then another organization 975 so you can you take the conservative estimate by the chairman of the federal reserve the question is why in the world, why in the world would would you want to do anything now that would hurt job creation? last month, we saw just over 200,000 jobs created. we are beginning to see a trend. we hope it will take hold.

we are not out of the woods. why would we want to enact anything that would put that at risk? so what this amendment does is very simple. it just says in the house, there shall not be in order to proceed to any concurrent resolution on the budget unless the congressional budget office certifies that enacting this spending revenue levels contained there and will not result in a loss of american jobs in the current budget year, because we want to make sure that whatever we do it does not have what i assume would be unintended consequences of hurting american jobs -- job growth and so i hope all of us will support this amendment. this is the issue of course that is on the minds of the american people every day. many of them, millions of them are still out there, out of work through no fault of their own. let's not do anything that would hurt the fragile economy and i yield back the balance of my

time. >> mr. woodall is recognized for seven and have and it's in opposition. >> thank you mr. chairman and as the rules committee designee to the budget committee, i have to approach this. i think there is a place for a point of order at this time that i hope we have had it. i hope you make a couple of changes to it and i look forward to working with you mr. van hollen to make that happen. i think we ought to look at every single tax bill that comes down the pike. you name a few from yard ornaments to mascots. i think everyone of those should be considered in light of what they do to destroy jobs in this country and i don't think it should be just a one-year look at whether or not it destroys jobs. ..

>> it is somewhere that they could turn with confidence. given that only three out of 47 states have seen any job growth since the spending of all the stimulus money unquestionably these jobs need to be a priority for us, and i hope that you will work with the rules committee, and we will see about kidding this in order. with that, i will yield two minutes to my good friend, mr. mcclintock. >> i think the gentleman. this is at the heart of the democratic economic policy, which is that government spending creates jobs. if only we can inject enough money into the economy beacon stimulate consumer demand and

therefore jobs. we have been hearing that after two years. it was this fall -- folly that drove the ruinous increases and spending, and we were promised it would hold unemployment under 8%. your mom to five remember that. march was the 26 consecutive month with unemployment over 8%. the reason these policies have not worked is that they cannot work. government cannot inject a single dollar into the economy that is not first taken out of that very same economy. it is true. if i take a dollar for peter and give it to paul, paul will have an extra dollar. that will ripple through the economy. that is all true. the problem is computer now has one less dollar to spend in that very same economy. in practice if that's too must let's -- much less than zero. investments that would have been made on economic assistance to political decisions. we see the job as created when

the dollar goes back into the economy. what we don't see as clearly are the jobs that are destroyed or prevented from forming when that dollar is first taken out of the economy. we see those lost jobs in a stubbornly chronic unemployment rate and economic stagnation despite utterly unprecedented peacetime spending. now, this measure depends and holds up the budget depending upon an accurate job forecast from the cbo. well, as a result of the stimulus bill, the cbo make some projections. their estimated macroeconomic impact of the american recovery and economic investment act, the cbo projected that the stimulus bill would result in an unemployment rate by now of between 66% and in the worst case to 81%. as you know, our current unemployment rate is 88%. the cbo has many strengths, but,

alas, dynamic economic scoring and accurate jobs predictions is not among them. high heels back. >> i would like to yield two minutes to the chairman. >> i will build on what mr. mcclintock said. first of all, i just am a little puzzled with this amendment. cbo can't score budget resolutions. they told us this already. they told us even if they were asked to do this, they can't. they can score actual legislation, but they very, very rarely do, like mr. mcclintock said. when they do that we have a big fight. you talk about these models. these macroeconomic models have been thoroughly discredited. i think the harvard and stanford analysis have done -- they have eviscerated the efficacy of these models. so we can do model against model if we want to. the point is, your model's i

suspect. you can say the same about hours, the ones we believe in. they come from different economic doctrines. that is no way to run a railroad. that is no way to do a budget. this is something that cbs as they can't do. this does not even apply to this budget resolution, but future budget resolutions. it is wrong to ask this agency something they are right now telling us they will never do. and also, i just find it kind of strange that we are asking for this book because it almost makes it look as if people voting against this don't want job creation of a sudden. maybe that is the purpose of this book. i'm not sure. this is something they cannot do. the model you are talking about i think has been discredited, and we should not vote for this amendment. i will yield back. >> and the clothes i will yield the remainder of our time. >> you are very gracious. try to say the same thing that

chairman just said a different way. i have seen the same reports saying that the 61 billion cut 700,000 jobs, 2% off of gdp. if you do the math, that means that the stimulus should have created 9 million jobs and added 26% to gdp. somehow you would have us believe that we have found the most magical and powerful $61 million in the entire $4 trillion federal government. i don't believe it. the american people don't believe it. if there is one good thing, if there is one lesson we learned from these trillions of dollars worth of deficits during this stimulus time is that people really now see once and for all that government spending does not create jobs, and i think you for raising the amendment. >> yield back. >> recognize to close for the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me just say with respect to the american recovery and reinvestment act, the stimulus bill, the reality is that -- and

this has been worn out by a whole range of analysts out there. it did, in fact, save jobs. this economy was headed over the press this through a number of actions that were taken on an emergency basis job loss was a lot less bad than it would have been. it is a political argument that is very hard to make, kind of like when you're trying to run up an escalator that is going down really quickly. if you do nothing you end up at the bottom. if -- if you take action you feel like you are treading water, but the reality is that the stimulus bill has helped stabilize an economy that was in free fall. it seems to me before we take action on the budget we should know whether in just the upcoming year. this does not ask cbo to let two or three or four years, just the upcoming year, we should know whether the independent referee, the united states congress, believes it will

create or not create jobs. high yield back. >> the question on agreeing to the amendment, all those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed say no. >> no. >> the notes have it. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

>> anyone else wish to vote? anyone want to change their vote? the clerk will report the vote. >> mr. chairman, on that vote the ayes are 16, and the nose are 22. >> as being 16, that being 22, the amendment is not agreed to. now isaac winds. twenty-one. sorry. i apologize. twenty-one. the clerk will designate the amendment. >> amendment designated as number 21 offered by mr. van holland, responsible deficit reduction should address spending for national security agencies. >> the gentleman is recognized for six and half minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the chairman and i had a deal, which is if we got all our amendments later on it would get bipartisan support for this one. let me say very seriously, i'm just going to read this amendment and then say a few words about it. very straightforward. it is the sense of the house -- the sense of the house that

responsible deficit reduction plan must consider all programs, including those at the pentagon and other national security agencies. is the sense of the house that the nation's debt is an immense security threat to our country, just as admiral mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff has stated. the government accountability office has recently issued a report documenting billions of dollars of waste and duplication at government agencies including the department of defense and the department of defense has never passed a clean audit. the bipartisan national commission on fiscal responsibility and reform in a bipartisan debt reduction task force will correct in concluding that all programs including national security should be on the table as part of a deficit reduction plan. any plan -- in the budget plan serious about reducing the deficit must follow this precept to consider all programs. it goes on. yesterday the co-chairs of the bipartisan committee indicated that one of what they considered

the shortfalls, shortfalls of the republican budget was that it did not -- it is largely exempts defense spending from production. now, i'm just going to read a couple experts, one from a possible republican presidential candidate. anybody who says you can't save money at the pentagon has never been to the pentagon. we can save money on defense, and if we republicans don't propose saving money on defense, will have no credibility on anything else. senator sessions, the message is clear. we need to do something now, and the defense department cannot be absolved of these challenges. we have to ask our defense department to do more than last. senator coburn, republicans also should resist pressure to take all defense spending cuts off the table. newly elected senator rant paul of kentucky have the courage to say go after the defense waste

and i look forward to working with them. senator chambliss, it puts everything on the table including entitlement programs and defense spending. we believe this has to be part of the discussion. my point is, there have been numerous reports about how the pentagon and other agencies with a lot of the defense contracting, there has been a lot of waste. if we are serious about looking at all the wasteful spending in the budget, you can't just put that off limits. that is the bipartisan consensus of the fiscal commission. that is what the different individuals i just quoted indicated, and that is what this amendment says. it just says we have got to be in the table. we all understand that we have to have and to have the best and strongest military in the world, and i don't think one person in this room would do anything at all to risk that.

we have heard from the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff that if we don't get our debt under control that will undermine our national security, and we have heard from a bipartisan group of respected leaders that this has to be part of any balanced discussion. so, i just -- i save this one for last hoping that, in fact, there could be some bipartisan support. i now yield the remainder of my time to my colleague and friend. >> i think the gentleman. once again, i think it -- all is on the table. the end of the debris will all have to put our hand on the stove at the same time. in order to get it done right, it's going to hurt. sometimes it may look as if, you know, looking at within the pentagon, the wrong place to look, but that is probably one of the best places to look. if i'm not mistaken, mr. chairman, i don't think they have been able to have an audit

within the pentagon in. >> sometime. if ever. so if we cannot go in and find some wasteful spending within the pentagon and we are certainly not doing our job. if we don't do it then it will only continue the same path, spending more money. they will look at -- not even look at waste, fraud, and abuse when that is an area where we can save money ultimately. we have to look at it. we don't want to ever impede our ability to defend our cost country. first and foremost, that has to be certain that we cannot take money that is not going to allow us to defend ourselves. and in some cases our neighbors. well, we can certainly look at it and take away the waste, fraud, and abuse within the pentagon, and i commend the chairman. i'm hoping that -- i don't think there is a number attest to this. it just says that we are all to look at it and to realize that everything must be on the table.

i yield back my time. >> and i think my colleague and yield back the remainder of my time. >> opposition for six and a half minutes. near the end, you can yield, i would appreciate it. >> absolutely. we have several people that want to speak. if i may, i will call on my friend and yield two minutes to him. >> thank you. first of all, our president through the secretary of defense, secretary gates, has already agreed to cut 178,000,000,078,000,000,000 going to reducing the deficit. so just by definition this budget does put defense on the table. it says you want to put a defense on the table. we have already done that. but in the process of voting for this it would suggest to me that you want to cut more out of defense. i believe that getting more out of defense is going too far. i've been on the armed services committee ten years, and in a different circumstance and if it weren't for the dire budget situation we are and, i wouldn't

even vote for this budget, the republican budget. the fact is that we are and some really deep water in terms of budgeting, so i think this is in the secretary gates has said that we think -- he thinks we can handle things, but going beyond it is a mistake. there are two assumptions, i believe, in this amendment that are false. the first one is that when you say everything is on the table, it suggests that all federal spending is of the same value. i don't agree with that premise. i think there are some types of spending we do that our constitutional and the top priority of the federal government. no state government can defend this nation. only the federal government can do that. our preamble says it is our job to take care of the defense of the nation's first and foremost. that is not the same weight as of the things that would be nice, but maybe we don't have to do. then there are other things in the budget that are just flat unconstitutional.

i don't think everything is the same way. to say everything is on the table in this case is not such a good idea. the second thing is, certainly the pentagon has ways to duplication. nobody argues that point. the problem is if we cut money from the pentagon we don't know how to do it in order to adjust cut waste and duplication. we will cut other stuff, which is muscle and bone and not just fat. if we were better at oversight, as congressman, and we did not accordion the budget in and out on defense all the time we probably -- we could probably find out what is really waste and duplication, but right now when you black defense you are blocking everything. there is no line item that says waste, fraud, and abuse. just to put in balance, to recognize where we are as a nation, we are at half the levels of defense that we were in 1990. we are at the 1916 level of number of ships. one thing we know about history,

you get in a war, you have to fight with the ship's you have or the ones that are on the waste your building. i think we are pushing things really, really close to be at half of where we were in 1990. i could swallow what the chairman has suggested, but making additional cuts, i think, would really be on lines. thank you. >> yield 90 seconds. >> thank you. quite frankly i don't think this amendment is completely unnecessary, but however, i just want to point out that as my friend has pointed out, we are all ready, the department of defense and every aspect of our federal government, we would not have the problem we have today. we are already on a guide path with defense spending which has been significantly lower in the last 50 years. we are flying aircraft that the grand kids are flying. we have to reset. the comeback from a rock and afghanistan. these boards will and spirit we

have to get new uniforms to my guns, jeeps, vehicles. we have significant issues that we have to deal with in the united states military. as a member of the defense appropriations committee obviously we have the responsibility of oversight. we have to do this carefully. make sure that we cannot not just some program or another, but it makes for we do the necessary cuts throughout the united states military establishment in a responsible way. that is extremely important because as my friend, mr. aitken, said, the number one responsibility of the yet to states government is to defend this country. this country death -- does have its enemies, and we are going to have to do a better job of making sure that we spend those dollars wisely. i believe that this amendment is unnecessary, and i would vote against it. >> thank you. >> yield one minute to my friend.

>> terrific connection here, i think. i want to thank so much mr. van holland for putting this amendment forward. i say that with great sincerity. your comments, mr. schuler, i think i agree with just about all the comments i heard. it is not unlikely that i within due course and probably a fairly short amount of time will be contemplating cuts to of our defense budget. however, i think that everything must be on the table, except those investments in our national defense that are absolutely essential. we have to protect the american people, our way of life. everyone agrees with that. the question is, what investments are essential? i am afraid that this amendment will lead to some on wise and precipitous decision making in a very important area. these are the sorts of decisions that need to occur by do deliberation, spirited debate,

and much consultation within the authorizing committee in my opinion. i personally favor, my inclination is to go for a humbler foreign-policy, a less interventionist foreign policy, but ultimately our defense spending is driven by a strategic vision, of vision about what our role should be in the world, what missions our military ought to be able to accomplish, what priority each of the respective missions should have, and how we properly resource each of those missions. right now i have respectively -- i respectfully say there is no grand strategy. we have no coherent doctrine and i will work with you to solve this problem. i promise you that. thank you very much. >> i'll be happy to close, but before i do i would rather yet to the chairman still i don't run out of time. >> look, we are already doing this. i am fine with supporting this amendment because i don't see it any different than what we are doing. we are taking 78 billion out of

defense already in the year. we are agreeing with the crux of this amendment. i have no problem. i don't think it changes anything different than what it does itself. >> allow me if i may conclude very quickly, i think in some ways it is superfluous. at think my friend for offering it because it allows us to say some things that need to be set. we ought to recognize that if you look at gdp we have gone from 9% on defense in the times of the cold war to six in the reagan buildup of the way down to three. we are at 48 and we are fighting three wars. that is the exact opposite of where we have gone. force is 40% smaller than it was in 1992, and the budget that we have here, the president's budget envisions a cut of about 40 south -- 40,000 plus in strength by 2015. we are certainly having opportunities to spend fangs and be wiser. remember, h.r. one has $15 billion in cuts over what the president proposed.

we knocked out the second. final point worth making, when you need the military you need it in a hurry. we found that out, the president did in libya, suddenly japan in a crisis situation. i would just suggest we be after nearly careful. >> the gentleman has a minute to close. >> and i won't use all of my time. i appreciate the spirit of the conversation, and i think, as i and mr. schuler and the chairman have indicated and many of the comments, we've really do need to look across the board to try and address our debt situation. chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said it best. he said that we have got a real debt crisis that will impact our national security. it's part of achieving that goal, it seems to me. we have an obligation to look at everything, especially when you're talking about the one agency that has never, i repeat

never passed a gao audit. and where you have stories regularly coming out about waste and defense contracting. so i'm just saying, this is an area that needs to be looked at. with that high yield back. >> the gentleman yield back this time. offered by the gentleman from maryland. those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed say no. >> in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. call vote are not? no? okay. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] do you want of roll-call vote are not? okay. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] >> anybody else wish to vote? changer vote? the clerk will report. >> mr. chairman, on that vote the ayes are 33 and then those are five. >> the ayes being 33 and the nose dive, the gentleman's amendment is agreed to. >> bipartisan government. after seven. >> i take it we are all on final passage now, right? all right. now, we are moving through here pretty well. we will do this. twenty-three.

this one i think we can voice pretty fast year. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. this is just a sense of the house regarding the importance of child support enforcement. you know, sometimes your paul ryan and you have a beautiful wife and two beautiful kids. you have a happily ever after, but sometimes it does not work out that way. parents are divorced. you know, children really rely upon child support as a reliable source of financial and medical support. i think that also the program increases the family self-sufficiency introduces child poverty and encourages both the mother and father to be involved and committed to their kid. 17 million children, a fourth of the nation's children participate in the child support program. child-support payments received by families represent 39 percent of the income of those headed by

single mothers and reduces the poverty rate by nearly 25%. child-support enforcement is one of our most effective anti-poverty programs. collections have doubled over the last decade ensuring that more kids receive the support they are owed and if your kids need other government assistance. for every dollar we spend on child support enforcement we save nearly a dollar on means tested programs such as food stamps, medicaid, and fsi. stouts support enforcement finds more cash to a more working families than almost any other family assistance program. $26 billion was collected from the not custodial parents and fiscal year 2009, at 24 billion was distributed directly to families. this program also secures private health coverage for children throughout their absent parents' employers.

this amendment basically this tracks the ways and means committee about the importance of passing through 100% of collected child support. estimated $2 billion increase in the total amount families receive. it will reduce poverty and improve program compliance. you know, we have done this experiment. it was passed, and it really is very helpful. i would like to yield some time to mr. ryan, if he will accept some time. >> i thank the gentle lady for yielding. the only regard i have is we keep having to do this amendment. >> to get the ways and means committee to do something, mr. chairman. >> the problem here is we have had this lever and wisconsin which works very well, all the money for child support to us from the father to the children and not a cut being taken to

washington. and so not all other states get to do this. this should be automatic. when somebody is making good on their child support payment it should go to the child, and a cut should not be taken to washington for the bureaucracy. that is the text area trying to get. this is common sense. i urge adoption. let's build back our time. >> all right. >> no real time an opposition. let's go for a vote. of those in favor? >> aye. >> anybody? no? ayes have it. next. okay. we are in it c-span.org. two more amendments that are technical in nature, correct? okay. to more technical amendments. let me start with, we will go to ms. pass. i will have my own. typically when we do these, those of you who are not on the committee before, the chairman usually reserves an amendment at the end for a technical and

conforming amendment that has to be done. as the staff mentioned in the water, there is a technical error regarding off budget levels in our month. in addition, there are other changes that need to be made to conform the tables the mark we introduced. i want to commend the ranking member and his capable staff. very hard at work. what they missed, however, the democratic staff caught this technical error, and i'm very much appreciative of that. this amendment includes technical errors, so does mrs. bass amendment. and this amendment, these amendments did not cause any that increased spending, revenues, or the deficit. this simply adjust revenues in categories where there blog. right now i will deal to ms. bass for her technical amendment. we will vote that, and then i will go to mine. then i think we're done. >> thank you, mr. chair. the chairman's comments mean that you can all look i. you know, throughout the day, and it has been a very long day.

most of the day has been spent with us having polar opposite views on so many different issues. so, frankly, i think it is nice in the midst of that that we go out of our way to look for ways where we might be united, where we might be able to work together. and so i thought it would be nice to and on a come by of all but. i ask my colleague. i took him at his word, mr. flores said he wanted to work together. the veterans issue. and so i offer this technical amendment that increases the budget authority and outlays for function 700. >> order. >> can i have order please. come on. a few more minutes. functions 700 by $188 billion to provide the president's requested funding level for each year over the 2012-2021. i also in this amendment make all the necessary and conforming

changes to the chairman's mark and the committee report is amended to reflect the following policy assumptions. the resolution matches the funding level for veterans, health care, and of the discretionary services that the president requested for each year in fiscal years 2012-2021. i offer this in conjunction with congressman flores, and i would yield the remainder of my time to the congressman. >> thank you, ms. pass. i am pleased to be able to work with on a bipartisan basis to offer the technical amendment and also to the right thing for veterans. i want to keep this brief, but this helps us to honor the charge of president lincoln to care for those who have served us in battle and for their spouses and children. and so i would urge adoption of this amendment. >> healed the remainder of my time to the chairman.

>> the gentle lady yield back her time. >> yes. >> all those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> any in the post? the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. next is my amendment, 101, the second technical amendment. all those in favor say aye? any opposed to mack and edible. [inaudible] >> great. great. the amendment is agreed to. i believe that is the last amendment, and i want to first just say thank you to the ranking member, mr. van houten. this went very well. i don't know how many of these i've done. i've done a lot of these markups and budget committee on both

sides of the aisle. 937, that is pretty darn good. it really is. i mean, yeah. that is something else. [applause] good spirited debate. i think we treat each other with respect to be done want to thank you very much. it's fantastic. i yield to mr. garrett. >> i think you, mr. chairman and congratulate the chairman as well. with that i move the committee adopts the budget aggregate functional categories and other matters as amended. >> the question is on the adoption of the budget aggregate functional categories and other matters as amended. all those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> any opposed no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. agreed to. to you want to a? >> mr. chairman,. >> without objection so ordered. pursuant to committee rule 9i now call up the text of the

concurrent resolution on the budget incorporating the budget aggregate, functional levels, and other relevant items as previously agreed to. the recognize the gentleman from new jersey for a motion to order the resolution reported to the house. >> mr. chairman, i move the committee of the budget and a concurrent resolution of the budget report to the house with the recommendation of the budget passed. >> the question as an ordering the concurrent resolution be favorably reported to the house. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. >> on that i asked. >> you do? a recorded vote is requested. the clerk will call the vote. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

>> i do want to thank the chair. i want to thank the chairman. yes. >> that's all right. >> i want to thank him for a very spirited but, as he said, a very civil debate. we obviously have differences of approach, but i think at the end of the day, obviously, we have the same goals. we want a stronger and continue to have a wonderful, great country. first of all, thank you for the way you and your team have conducted yourselves. again, as he did at the beginning, we want to thank the staff on both sides for their terrific work and to all of the members of the committee for i think what was a good debate during the day. with that, mr. chairman, -- >> no. after seven. [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] >> thank you, mr. chairman, for your humor. [roll call] [laughter] >> that's good. [roll call] >> that was good. [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] >> the clerk will report. >> mr. chairman, on that vote the ayes are 22, the notes are 16. >> the ayes being -- say that again, please. >> the ayes are 22 and the those are 16. >> the guys being 22 and the does 16, the report, the resolution is agreed to permit one moment. hang on. mr. garrett. >> mr. chairman, i moved pursuant to clause one that the community authorized the chairman to authorize such motions as may be necessary to get a conference with the senate of the current resolution of the budget. >> without objection so ordered. recognize the to the man from new jersey one more time. >> finally i ask unanimous consent that stat be authorized to make technical conforming corrections and calculate the remaining elements required in the resolution prior to the filing of the resolution.

>> without objection so ordered. that concludes today's business. this committee stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> wrapping up this day long session working on federal spending for next fiscal year, 2012, there could be a vote on this next week on the house floor. meanwhile, president obama met with house speaker and senate majority leader tonight on spending for this budget year. the associated press saying the president emerged from the meeting saying that he proposed that we act like grown-ups. the house plans of vote tomorrow on another temporary spending bill for fiscal to -- 2011 that would expand fast to cut spending for one weekend cut an additional $12 billion. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> you can see this day long

house budget markup on our website along with the gop 2012 budget plan. cut to c-span.org to see that. in have few moments a hearing on preparations for the 2020 census. in two hours, a look at the tsa program on behavior detection officers to look for unique facial expressions and body language is to identify security threats. >> as a host and i think as a traitor you are not necessarily republican or democrat. you are simply looking at the impact of what government is doing on the financial markets, whether it be the oil market or trading or ball street firms. >> sunday cnbc fast money anchor melissa lee on her career and influences and what she believes is her role in reporting

business and financial news. what's the rest of the interview sunday night at 8:00 on c-span2 q&a. you asked census bureau director robert groves told senators that the bureau is testing internet based questionnaires for the 2020 census as a way to cut costs. last year's census used paper forms that cost nearly $100 per person. this is two hours. [inaudible conversations] >> the hearing will come to order. balkan. i'm happy to see you all. thank you for joining us today on an important hearing, very important hearing. we will make a brief statement and turn it over to the senator. he will introduce our witnesses and get this show on the road. today's hearing will examine lessons learned from the 2010

census. while identifying initiatives that show promise for producing and even more accurate and cost-effective census in 2020. i want to begin by congratulating the doctor. his predecessor, dr. murdock sat at this seat once or twice himself when he was our senses director. and professionals at the census bureau who have done an excellent job in carrying out the 2010 census. as a result of their hard work the census bureau was able to overcome a number of operational and organizational challenges including short comment with critical information technology systems. the bureau completed key operations on schedule, hiring nearly 900,000 temporary workers, and tanning and acceptable participation rate of 74%, and managed to report its population figures in time to support redistricting said thatd know in delaware we only have one at a large united states representative. despite these achievements the

2010 census was the most expensive in the nation's history by far. even taking inflation into account, the total cost for this annual operation as collected from the initial estimate of $11 billion to close to $13 billion. even more disturbing is the fact that with all the modern scientific improvements and technology advancements that have been made over the years the framework for conducting the 2010 census was based off of a model that, i believe, was used in the 1970's. although the mythological basics remain the same over the past 40 years, the cost of the census decidedly has not. the average cost was $98 in 2010 compared to $70 in 2020 compared to $16 in 1970. i have been told that the total cost of the 2020 census could rise to as much as $30 billion if we keep going on this track.

in my view, that is not acceptable. any more than budget deficits of one and a half trillion dollars are acceptable. it is especially not acceptable and a time when we are struggling to find solutions to serious budget problems and a debt crisis that our country is currently facing. we spoke at previous hearings about the need for us to look in every nook and cranny of the federal government, the defense, and spending along with tax expenditures and ask this question, is it possible to get better results for less money? a hard truth is that many programs funding levels will be produced. they may need to be reduced. even some of the most popular and worthwhile programs out there will likely be asked to do more with less. at least to do more without a whole lot more money. the census pirro, despite the locality and constitutionally mandated nature of its work cannot be immune from this sort of examination.

while most americans want us to reduce the deficit determining the best route for word will not be easy. many believe that those of us who have been sent here to washington are not capable of doing the hard work, making the hard decisions that we were hired to do. effectively managing the federal dollars, tax dollars that they have entrusted us with. they look at our spending decisions that we made in recent years and question whether the culture is broken. they question whether we are capable of making decisions and families have to make them on a daily and weekly basis with their own budgets. i don't blame them for being skeptical, and i'm afraid that the skepticism proved to be well-founded when you look at the kind of management failures that contributed to the 2010 census. today we will look at the bureau's planning efforts for 2020 and although it is nine years away, it is never too early to start thinking about ways to reduce cost and improve quality through more efficient

data collection. more importantly, we need to make certain the issues that lead to failures and cost oversight's we saw in recent years have been addressed and will not recur. taxpayers will not be expected to pick up the tab began. looking ahead, the bureau's research should focus on how existing technology can be incorporated in the 2020 design. obviously the internet is here to stay, at least from my lifetime. according to the experts in internet response, could save the bureau tens of millions of dollars and processing costs. future research should not only focus on how employment internet data collection, but how to reap the benefits, financial and otherwise we also need to make certain that the people who make up our growing changing country are comfortable enough with the security of the data collection methods we use to offer an accurate census.

moreover, steady leaders will be critical. marked by poor planning and escalating costs. the 2010 census experienced several changes and vast spans of time with acting directors further putting the operation at risk. twenty-seven months leading up the bureau had not one, not to come about three different directors. i plant that introduce legislation this year that would, among other things, make the director of the census bureau a presidential term a point of five years. a fixed term would help to avoid gaps during critical senses planning stages and facilitate the longer term planning so vital to decennial census. senator coburn and i introduced legislation last year to establish a term appointment and to make a number of other changes at the bureau and at preventing serious problems in the future. it passed unanimously, but failed to be taken up in the

house. i would like to work with you, if i can to make whatever changes are necessary to put together something that addresses the lessons learned from 2010 and can enjoy bipartisan support as our proposal did in the last congress. we look forward to hearing from our witnesses to help us to identify ways to best balance the need for an accurate census with the need to ensure that reasonable cost. senator brown, ten years from today i suspect you will still be here. i am not sure that i will be. i would not want to bet on that. whoever does sit in the seat where you and i said, i don't want them to be saying, you know, how did we end up spending twice as much for the census in 2020? how did we do that? that is what we did 2000-2010, and we have done it again. i don't want the folks in this

committee to get through that, i don't want the senate to go through that. at the what the people in the country to go through that. the ground work is already being late this year to make sure that we don't see history repeating itself, and we are anxious to of learn how we can help to make sure that we end up in, cash, nine years from now that we have a better count, and more accurate census, and have done it not for twice as much money. maybe if we are smart the same amount of money. all right. i'll stop. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm bouncing back and forth to hearings, so i'll only be able to stay for the first panel depending upon the time. i do appreciate the opportunity to come. it's good to see you again. as you noted, our country has conducted a census every year obviously since 1790. a federal undertaking that results. utilized to poise seats in the house, redistricting in determining the annual distribution of more than $400 billion in federal and state funds. while we must strive to ensure

every person is counted, we cannot afford to have the out of control spending that seems to be potentially -- well, going on and getting worse continue. the cost of counting each housing unit has escalated from $16 in 1970 to 98 in 2010. i have learned in my brief tenure that we cannot continue to do things the way we always have. we have to think outside the box, modernize, get up but the times. i feel -- i know we used to have records. little needle. i tell my kids and young people, i used to listen to records. they looked at me like i have three heads. you all know what i am talking about, but the record is. you look around and you see how we do stuff and the federal government. i feel like i'm back in the 70's talking about records. whether it is the arlington national cemetery and they keep fallen heroes on cue cards, index cards. i just don't get it.

with the amount of money we spend on these things we have to find a way to do it better, get a more, better bang for our buck. and, as you know, for the most part the basic model of census taking has not changed. as i've been talking about, we need to update the master mind, consolidate, do it better. we are relying on the old school way of doing things, and it is just not doing it -- working. with an array of internet based technologies, you know, facebook, twitter, i am, the whole range of ways that we can do it better. ..

a look forward to the witnesses speaking, mr. chairman. 20 thank you for thank you for holding the hearing. >> that we could do it together. i'm going to introduce my panel. i think you've all been here before, maybe a couple times. rane here appearance basis. that may well come dr. groves affirmed by the senate in last july. dr. groves in methodology has spent decades working to strengthen the federal statistical system and improve its staffing through training programs and keep it committed to the highest scientific principles of accuracy and efficiency. having once served as associate director of the census bureau, dr. gross knows how the agency

operates, why his employees need to successfully implement other programs. nice to see you. todd zinser, would service the honorable. i don't know if this ever happens dio, you get phone calls at home from people who arrived at do-not-call list. there's still people calling from the university of michigan or ohio state or someplace like that. when there got this call from a fellow who said is habanera. he said part of me? he said his time there. what would he be calling for? i was thinking short for honorable. so i said this is harmed. [laughter] i forget where he was calling from. calling for so-and-so. just wanted to call and see if you can do it again. and i said so, hon have no

money. in about another 30 seconds is it more strongly, hon has no money. he comes back a third time in a sad hon have no money. call hon castle. and so you said goodbye and never called back. but todd zinser, welcome. tossers inspector general for u.s. department of commerce. as inspector general, zinser to investigators, attorneys administer software preventing fraud, waste and abuse and a vast array of business and environmental programs administered by the department of commerce and the 13 euros. mr. zinser hosted thatcher's degree from northern kentucky university and a master's degree in political winds from miami

university. in oxford, ohio? home of the bobcats? ohio university? i think so. we were buckeyes. robert olden kosice director strategic issues and the government accountability office or he's responsible for reviewing the 2010 census governmentwide human capital reforms. he is also performed research on issues involving human trafficking and federal statistical programs as master of public administration's public george washington university. your entire statements will be made part of the record and once you've concluded, i'm going to have senator bound to take the first questions and then i'll take my nap. no, be listening intently to

questions and answers. dr. gross, tune in for taking on this job. if you go a whole lot over five minutes, i reign you in. please proceed. >> mr. chairman, ranking member brown, i'm happy to be here in thank you for the invitation. on the census bureau has the formal valuations on the 2010 census, the second complete, but if information i can share on quality indicators. my testimony and written form is really in three pieces. evaluation of the senses. our organizational change and others at the census bureau and lessons learned. i'm going to concentrate on the third part. but i cannot bet the preliminary findings on the quality of the 2010 census are positive and the majority and show improvements over the 2000 after.

i'd be happy to expand on that. i want the committee to do with also been engaged in a variety of initiatives that we care deeply about. we have basically concluded that her business model of collecting social and economic data faces of your challenges over the long run. we know we must innovate in order to remain useful and relevant to the country. further, we know that this innovation is not likely to be funded by added resources. we must become more efficient and fun innovations from cost saving measures and that's what these programs are about. i want to mention three and specifically first we've mounted a program that is seeking proposals from throughout all the employee groups for cost efficiencies. it was heartwarming to see last year we received over 650 proposals from folks throughout the senate through on how to

make what they do more efficient. and we're pursuing a lot of the good ideas and saving money already. second, we partnered with other federal agencies to sponsor surveys that we collect data for in order to find out ways that we can save money for them. this will have ripple thanks to other agencies. third, we are vigorously trying to tear down boundaries among the silos of the census bureau. we are trying seek organizationwide. we've been to to to to incorporate higher program to ensure that they will move across the organization in the early years of their career, spreading innovation across the silos. we are moving aggressively on enterprise architecture solutions on the i.t. front. this means a greater emphasis on the internet and cloud

computing, a consolidation of data storage systems that's already saving money. we built a technology innovation center to do quick prototyping of new solutions. we have greatly expanded our internet data collection, soon to cover 60 of our sample surveys, allowing approximately 900,000 respondents the opportunity to respond to nine. i want to note increasingly people are using the internet options for providing handheld devices like the iphone and droids and ipads. this'll make us a more integrated organization, one to 902020 census and that's what they want to turn to now. i want to go through a lessons they've learned personally, each of which has generated a principle for the organization of development plans for 2020. the multi-decade crossed increase of the senses must be

halted. we are attempting to design a 2020 census that costs less per housing unit than the 2010 census on maintaining quality of the results. lesson two, the traditional nonresponse autoworkers teachers who refuse to over past decades are inefficient and costly. we want to make the senses convenient to various groups using multiple data collection. this means traditional mail, but also multiple internet auctions face-to-face and other modes as they emerge. less than three systems that use first used perfection must be abandoned. we need and to end tests of production since times, ideally within real survey production environments. lesson four, too few of the system and development -- procedure development for the 2010 census were designed to benefit the entire institution.

plus, the fourth principle is we want to develop systems within the survey production environments of the census bureau. we plan to use the american community survey for the 2020 census systems development. let me skip to less than six. we have concluded that a small number of large test fences create risk. we want to do many small tests. we feel that the evidence of updating the master address list of the partial updating in the last decade was successful and we want to build on that success. let me sum up. overall, we know of no single method of collecting census data that is optimal for all the diverse subpopulations of the u.s. some residents have told us they don't want people visiting their homes. some residents told us that information authority provided

in other government forms up to be used. some of the internet on any time of the day to fit their lifestyle and someone to speak by telephone to someone who's asked their language and understands their subculture. by making the senses more convenient, we hope to reduce the size of the expensive field follow-up activities. this is the most important and expensive part of the data collection. for concentrating efforts to achieve a quality sent this. those are my oral remarks. i'd be happy to answer questions. >> with or to those questions and answers. please proceed. >> thank you, mr. chairman for inviting us to testify today about lessons learned on the 2010 census and how we apply this in 2020. the 2010 decennial is an undertaking with the current cost estimate of nearly $13 million that required more than a decade of planning,

testing and implementing dozens of operations and hundreds of thousands of employees to accomplish. my testimony today is based on oversight be provided over the last decade to both the planning and execution of the decennial. our oversight for number 100 oig staff to every state and the district of columbia. we provided feedback stakeholders on headquarters at cavities and from the field and reports on testimony and real-time communications back to the senses hero. all the senses is successfully completed its 2010 operations, the decennial carried a high cost and level of risk that should not be repeated. factoring trends in population, gao recently estimated the current design model could be a 2020 decennial cost as high as $30 billion. such cost growth is understandable. to achieve quality account with much greater cost containment that can fundamentally change

design implementation and management of the decennial senses and must do so now. my testimony today covers and challenges present stereo to address the 2020 census. first, they must revamp processes to increase accuracy, flexibility and transparency. second, sent the should you the internet in an industry that records to contain costs and improve accuracy. they're already numerous federal agencies that collect similar information about u.s. household and if you can't duplicate it caused. use of existing administrative records could greatly assist in reducing cost many operations. it's a complex issue but not insurmountable. a solid commitment to use the internet is imperative. third, since the should implement a more effect of test programs. 2010 site tests were scheduled scheduled at two-year intervals, each one transpired over three

years of planning, implementation and evaluation. the test of an outcome which made it difficult to apply results from one test to the next of the senses now plans to conduct a larger number of smaller type that more closely and i'm research with the testing program. forthcoming census should automate field data collection. since a straight to maximize the use of automation for the 2010 decennial but fall short and as a result cost and risks increase substantially. since this mush or i.t. acquisition process to prepare for successfully implementing automated data collection. fifth, we recommend the avoiding massive and decade field operation through continuous union address melissa maps with a large and decade operation which has $444 million in 25% cost overrun.

since his link to it the address lists and maps continuously throughout the decade innocent or another options to meet its address in that requirement. sixth, the beer should implement improved project planning and management techniques early in the decade. for the 2010 decennial track more than 9000 dvds for several years for 44 different operations. we have made recommendations aimed at strengthening project and risk management. finally comes the spirit director position should be established with administrations for the lifecycle of the 2010 decennial, we counted six directors in the directors but benefits from greater leadership continuity. francis has embarked on its plans. however, it was a continued focus on engagement resources throughout the decade from the department of commerce, omb and congress to help ensure the 2020 cents fulfills the promise of better technology, methods and operations. that concludes my summary,

mr. chairman. i'd be happy to answer any questions you are the member's house. >> dr. groves, when the questions come to me. we ask you to sort of walk through the list of recommendations for mr. zinser. just be prepared to comment on those. mr. goldenkoff, please proceed. >> mr. chairman, ranking member brown, are they to thank you for the opportunity to be here to discuss lessons learned in the 2010 census and initiatives that show promise for enumeration and 2020. 2010 census is an operational success in the census bureau generally completed its peak data collection activities can disable the plan an early city is to apportion redistrict congress on the days ahead of legally mandated deadlines. nevertheless, enduring up for the enumeration, the bureau had to overcome a series of hurdles such a basic complete account. first, internal issues including long standing wheat said in team

management procedures threaten the beer's readiness for the enumeration in my best to add the 2010 census to the list of programs. at the same time, external societal trends such as increasingly diverse population have made a headcount inherently difficult. much like going down the escalator, over the past 40 years, they've been investing more resources each decade to secure a secure account. for example, is ranking member brown noted earlier, in constant $2010, the cost of each household is escalated from $60 in 1972 around $90 in 2010. the increase of over 500%. this trend is unsustainable. meanwhile, the 2010 census was the most extensive headcount in our nations history. simply put, the singular challenge facing the u.s. census

bureau is how to control the cost of the 2020 census while maintaining the factors he. in this regard, my remarks today will focus on four key lessons learned from 2010 that will be important for the bureau to address as it continues playing a first for 2020. the first is the import of the fundamentally re-examining the nation's approach to taking the senses. this is critical because of the refining current method, some of which have been in place for decades will not bring about reforms needed to obtain acceptable results given ongoing in newly emerging societal trends. a fundamental re-examination means rethinking the approach to planning, testing, implementing, monitoring and evaluating sent this. potential focus areas include making better use of administrative records, such as driver's licenses as well as social media such as internet. the second lesson learned is the importance of tailoring key census operations to specific locations in population groups.

the bureau plans to complete over 70 cities of the 2010 cents this. this research is completed, you will be critical for the bureau to assess the cost and benefit of each operation to allocate resources more efficiently and 2020. third lesson learned centers on institutionalizing efforts to address terrorism in the 2010 cents is a high-risk area. this includes incorporating best practices for i.t. acquisition management, developing more reliable cost estimates and ensuring key operations are fully tested under conditions. the fourth lesson learned or ensuring the organizational culture and structure as well as approach to strategic planning, human capital management and other internal functions are aligned towards reducing cost is not comes. his actions are needed because some operational problems during the 2010 in person as a semantic deeper organizational issues

such as inadequate planning. importantly, the bureau has launched an ambitious plan a program for 2020, taking such measures as reforming us take for the management. as these factions gain momentum, though the import may enhance the capacity to conduct an accurate count, control costs and manage risk and be more nimble and adapting to social demographic, technical and other changes expected in the future. in closing, the beer goes to great lengths each decade to improve specific sense of taking activities, but the incremental modifications have not kept pace with societal and technological changes. the beer is well aware of this in the no time in launching the planning of the for a more cost-effective enumeration in 2020. we'll also be important for congress to continue astronomers say the same assembly look forward to supporting the subcommittee in this regard. mr. chairman, ranking member

brown, this concludes my remarks may be pleased to respond to questions you might have. >> mr. goldenkoff, thank you very commit very much. first of all, let me ask if i could of mr. zinser and mr. goldenkoff commuter dr. groves testify number times before. with help ensure we get a better time going forward for less money. what did you hear from dr. groves today to your pleas -- especially pleased to hear and what do you wish you might not have? >> yeah, i also had the opportunity to review the testimony before we came out today. i have to say i think that dr. groves' observations from my office and mr. goldenkoff's observations are all right on the same page and i think that we are pretty much in agreement with dock your -- dr. groves has

laid out and i think that what we like to see more of the nuts and bolts management issues for budgeting and project management. >> i'm going to spend me. i went to a senator brown to the peered out the back of pick that up where we started. i'm sorry. go ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman. so mr. groves, as they talked about in the beginning, whether the measures of the household which is going from $16 to $98 from 4.1 billion to over 12 billion in 1990 to '10. in your opinion, what is caused the explosive growth quiet

>> if you look over the decades that there are several drivers to it. one has to do -- most of the drivers could focus on the nonresponse follow-up besiegers. people are sent mail questionnaires. >> how much does the mail actually cost? i know i've got about 30 of them. >> well, what we said throughout the senses tastier, last year was to return the mail questionnaire costs about 42 cents. to call in your household costs us about $57. so that is the ratio that is so important. >> so it is still more effect is via mail. >> if mail worked 100%, it would be very cheap senses. it's a technique that works for networks. the problem is those rates are going down. the black laymen -- the costs

and the line are related to one another. when the returns don't come in, then we go out and knock on doors. >> .chart above for everybody is the reduction, the 63%, which is the male response rate in the 98 million projected. that is not just mail. that is the follow-up to the phone calls, doorknocking, the whole shebang. >> absolutely. this decade we knocked on 47 million household doors and that costs a lot of money. so, if you say, had used up that trend? we are focused enough on the follow-up procedure. what is driving those caused and how do we reduce the number of households that requires that expensive personal visit?

>> i know we had this conversation, so everyone who is listening is clear, these are people in households. this is nothing to do with people here legally or illegally. just people. >> our mandate under the census act of 1790 has been renewed discounting all resident. >> do we have an accurate account of how many u.s. citizens are here? >> decennial sent this doesn't have a question. >> usually we are trying to find out who is here and giving money to states in trying to make determinations as to who is representing who in congress and we don't even know how many u.s. citizens are in this date? >> for purposes of the decennial sent us --

>> of the human usual that we do it that way as well? and by the way, we need to find out how many people here are united states citizens so they can give you the funds properly. does that make sense clicks >> there is a wonderful phrase in the constitution and article i, section two that congress shall by law direct how the census is done. i believe congress has the power to change that. >> i believe that's what we talked about. i appreciate you being consistent in making that recommendation. i'm not sure if there is an effort to make the determination to give congressional guidance to do that. what performance measures should congress track to ensure the census keeps its promise for housing and 2010 and 20 senses in the future quite

>> i think are very things they could be done in the al gore into the rubric of watching us over the decade will be key. we have good been integrated set of research steps that answer key questions. every one of the questions are related to cost and quality of the senses. so we are going to be producing answers over the coming years if were funded to do this. you should hear those answers and you should be satisfied with the answers that were moving in the right direction to keep that focus. it's critical. >> could you do your job without the money? >> i don't know the answer to that. i think it's unlikely. >> can you do it with the $98 billion for the next go around in 20?

>> for $98 million? >> 98 per household. i can tell you our goal is to reduce that -- >> what is the goal? >> we don't have a number. me tell you how we address the cost estimation. >> we are doing modeling of different caused outcomes based on different areas, different assumptions. our research is basically going to tell us as the months go by, which of those assumptions are correct. we will narrow in on the cause. every research we address of cost impacts and we want to share with you those answers to keep us honest on cost reduction. >> i want to apologize. i know the numbers we went over the other day and obviously earlier for 12 billion to do what you did. and per household is $98. that's why have these and i don't use them enough, so i

apologize. on the 2000 census, included in the internet response option come you at the 2010 senses denied as the sent this relied on the mailing, mail out used for decades. >> by decades of the revolution did not contain option? this decision was made in the middle of the decade between 202,010. the reasons i've been told that led to the decision and were concerned about security. at this point, those are not valid. we are doing a large number of sample surveys can be used internet. we've conquered i.t. challenges quite successfully. as your chart shows in other countries have been doing this. >> i'm sorry, sorry. just reading down the order of the questions.

>> i'm not now, i'm not going to get the big guy not. i am all done. >> dr. coburn, one that you jump in here? reclaim your chart. >> i want to say publicly how it used i am that we had this leadership at the dissent is. and i have great faith. i have seen what he took gone, how he accomplished his mission and his commitment to using the organization for more efficient. and one of your big backers. they appreciate the job you've done and the people under you that it hoped to accomplish that. how much do we spend on american community survey ever here? >> roughly 200 million.

>> $20 million. jia plans to put the american community survey online? >> we are actually in the middle of an internet has on the acs. it is a bigger challenge. i need to tell you that. >> i understand, but we are testing it right now. >> just for history, the reason it wasn't on the internet is there is a contract between lockheed martin and the senses to do an online test. and they came up with the garbage excuse that they couldn't manage the security went 72% of the income taxes paid to this country on the security. this conscript from england and i saw this in a setback to show this to train one. the fact is they are advertising in games get it done. the very contract we turned down the dead from great britain and is working wonderfully over there. so we know it's possible.

i will go throughout the rest of the questions i have an internet, but i think it's important that we -- i know you're important to bringing us up to speed. will save hundreds of millions of dollars annually if in fact we accomplish that task. what are the main management and operational challenges that you really phase during the 2010 -- i do want you to take a long time, but will read to the challenges and how to address them? >> well, we had a fantastic team. i want you to know. the folks that followed up on every plan enough for produced a lot of saved operations. the chief challenges for software challenges. we had a system that monitored the workflow i was not working properly for about three weeks.

that was a scary time. we got it working ended actually really purred along a yen, but the first few weeks are kind of scary. we were -- well, let me stop at that. that was the chief management threat that we had. for ardito and archie witnesses, had either of you done any estimates of what you think the cost savings could be if we utilize the internet and the senses quiet >> we have a done anything like that commissary. >> we have not either. there are some large upfront costs getting the system up and running and that would be to be offset by the response rate, but we have not done any estimates. >> but it is important that we go to the irs and they what are the problems you have in getting this going? in other words, we learn from

the events rather than trying to do it again. i hope are going to be doing that in terms of good correlation with their experience is and how they got this up and running the security going. we don't have to reinvent it every time we do something. dr. groves, let me go to another question. senator brown, i ask you, do have the power to change the questions on the sent this? >> on the decennial sent this? a process by which the decennial sent this question are arrived at is the laborious one that brings in a whole lot of stakeholders. we then submit the questionnaire to congress in the year that ends in six and in seven. and for your review -- so it is truly a collaborative process. >> do we actually have done that? >> i think that is. over decades on how congress has

reacted. >> when i'm actually following up a little and senator brown is the could haves in the decennial senses a question, a u.s. citizen? we could have that. >> there's nothing that clues us from asking that. >> not as i understand it. >> that's what they want to make sure. >> the other thing is we had testimony. but it's important whether decennial senses director that expensive ministrations? >> what it comes down to his stewardship. it seems the course of the decade. several implementations for change as you well know can take years. and so what has happened in the run-up to the 2010 cents is both a lot of turnover among the directors. if you look back since 1969, the average tenure is about three years for the sent this. the longest was five years. >> my question to dr. groves, are we going to get to keep you?

>> i don't believe i can answer that question. >> if you are invited, are we going to get to keep you? >> i'm saying it is somewhat humor, but it's not humorous. you know, continuity and agencies like this is really important. we give great leadership, we should do everything to keep the leadership and make sure continuity goes within the scary donnell. so my hope in my wish would be that you in fact -- i'll work on my site to make sure you get asked. you work on your site to make sure you can. [laughter] >> just to follow up on not. dr. coburn's last comment. i hosted in this room a couple weeks ago folks from the department of defense, gao, other witnesses we focused on what the major weapons systems which have grown from $42 billion in 2000 to $402 billion last year.

it increased over 10 years. one of the things we've learned to senator coburn turns out that the folks in the department of defense in senior level in charge of overseeing acquisition -- develop into an acquisition made huge turnover. the extended period of time where it's basically nobody there. the direct reports on imposition and no wonder we are just teach in our tale and not doing a good job at it. it's actually not common whether the president is george w. bush or barack obama to have some paint that looks like administrative swiss cheese. we've got too many vacancies. one of the things we've been working on and senator schumer, senator alexander have been reduced by a third the number of submissions and that's not only to that, the bee able to say whoever's going to serve as senses that your only hope will

be able surf for a five-year term with the opportunity to go beyond that if there's interest in doing that. i want to go back to the questions i was asking to mr. zinser and mr. goldenkoff. we heard from dr. groves' testimony you are pleased in what you're saying is that the review, the entities to represent have to be on the same page. and i'll come back to say what were some things you didn't hear the would've liked to have heard? dr. goldenkoff, what did she you especially like to maybe mention a thing or two that you think you would like to have heard. >> well, i think it's important to recognize the census bureau sees two components to the challenges they face going forward. when her operational problems that they have to refine and improve existing operations. some cases, develop new and innovative techniques and technology like the internet.

the other component of course is the internal management, things like human capital management. the organizational structure and from what dr. groves says he's addressing that as well. it's an ordinary combat the issue of a cost effect of missing from these cheap spec is. what i would like to hear more of his more about a government structure. the census bureau has a lot of tennis. a lot of pieces of the puzzle. the big challenge going forward is how this all is going to come together and how is it going to coalesce to a more cost effective sent this in 2020? >> mr. zinser, anything that comes to mind that you'd like to have? >> yes, the things we pointed out in the reports do with those kind of nuts and bolts that robert has had about. that or budgeting, better project management. for example, with the number that duties and operations can

make up a senses, they need integration in their budgeting and project management occupation. i think risk management is an area where a greater effort is called for and i think if they can focus on those kind of issues, that eventually that will result in a more sent to the operation. >> okay, thanks. and on page three of your written testimony, mr. zinser, you mentioned top management challenges for the 2020 senses. you mentioned maybe seven of them. of those seven, pick out one or two of the most critical challenges in that mosque dr. groves to comment on those. >> i think the most critical challenge we identify is addressing the issue of the use of the string of record to help supplement the enumeration process. >> give us an example of that. >> there are numerous agencies

that collect about u.s. households, whether it's the veteran said in frustration or social security admin is tatian and there's a lot of data that the census bureau actually does use for some of it missions. i think there are plans underway and exercises under way to try to figure out how to use that type of information, those administrative records for the decennial. and i think of that type of information was used that we could reduce cost for many census bureau's operations. >> would you comment on those points? >> on the administrative record, led a frame the issue. i think when we examine our nonresponse follow-up outcomes, when negative sign in the 2010

and is is that 22% of the people where we knocked on their doors and a follow-up that we never reached. we didn't have data from an ear under our rules, we seek information from a building manager or neighbor to determine the count of people inside those houses. >> would you stop for a second. did you say 22% of the people you try to follow a because you hadn't heard from, 22% were never provided? would that be overall? >> 22% of roughly 24%. so it ends up being a single-digit number. >> so roughly weird from 95% of people in the country. >> right, and the 22% figure should be compared in 2000 to 17%. and that's a move in the wrong direction. now, i've also received e-mail

of people saying, why are you asking me these questions because i've given you the answers already. they didn't actually give them to us. they gave them to another government agency. and they're right. and under our current procedures, under the old procedures, we wouldn't use those data in any way. so what the inspector general is noting that it's a missed opportunity. with people that would prefers to use those data and not bother them again. but for a variety of reasons, were not doing that. some of them have to do with agreements with other agents thieves. now is a statistician, i think our first obligation is to answer the question, do we get good data? what kind of people are covered that way? what kind of people are? a wing of the records were inadequate for some subpopulation, so you would want to use it that way.

that could harm the quality of the senses. and we need to check on the attributes of people are recorded there. so, you may recall when i first testified in front of this committee after my confirmation, i noted that attesting to the 2010 effort to see whether administrative efforts could cover the population while. where in the middle of the test now that would be the first kind of technical answer. the congress -- i would hope congress would talk about it. because this is a change we have to make sure everyone's comfortable. >> were pretty good at talking about. will certainly talk about that, too. senator brown. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. gross, the commerce department as you know hired more than 140,000 temporary field employees to work 40 or

fewer nontrivial production hours in excess of $80 million. what can be done in 2020 to avoid this waste of tax your money? >> well, we look back and diagnose some of that. this occurred first of all the aat's figures they don't doubt. a lot of that occurred in the early operations. let me tell you what happened. we actually underestimated the ability to recruit, hire and train people that did a good job and stayed with it. we use productivity models from the 2000 cycle where the unemployment rate was much lower than it was in the 2010th cycle. we were able to hire people who really wanted to work and put in a lot of hours. they were very good. they finish the work faster than we thought. so one of the problems is getting -- looking forward,

getting good estimates of product to the next time that takes into what the labor market conditions are. we undershot with the product did he actually was. the second thing is sort of risk management on that. it is a very common tended and production processes to make sure you produce on time, on schedule. one way to reduce the risk of the manager is to offer higher. then you know you can complete your test. we need to manage the is better. and we're talking about how to do that. >> i know you also have some inquiries, folks that i've actually been doing it the right way. and i know you and i talked a little bit. we seem to be on friday night you get a call. >> either way, did you know the sensesa, b., c. d. by this time work within --

>> we have some others that do that, don't we? >> they don't always behave while in the halls. >> they tried. can you explain the situation cannot you handle them? >> well, there were a lot of situations. there were 600,000 people out on the street, knocking on 47 million household doors, a lot of things happen. some of them were wonderful things. some of our enumerators actually saved lives because they not done a door were someone was in the middle of a heart attack. >> probably because you guys are coming. >> there were 707. about 35% of them against our enumerators for people through weapons on our enumerators. so it's a very complicated process. you have to watch it every day. we have wonderful people who jump on the scent didn't very

quick clean and manage them. we have pretty termination goals. these these are temporary employees. tonight, need to actually terminate? >> i'd be happy to get you those, but there were a lot of determinations because they were not a lot of folks -- >> i know how many folks were terminated during the last senses. i can invent the wheel, but i don't want to do that. just to explore a little bit of it dr. coburn said. if you're going to use the internet like that, what is the front prevention mechanisms in place in something like that? >> well, a lot has to do with i.t. security encryption procedures. >> how do you know the individual is here? >> forget the legal, illegal

issue. >> yeah, i think the key's quality control procedures are similar on the internet as they would be. but the same thing can happen on paper, right? we were interviewing procedures. we have a lot of statistical tec thinks to look at outliers, data that don't look right and they follow upon those cases. >> what about the availability of private industry technology. so does matching database systems. it seems like a night you, per se, but the census bureau reinvents the wheel every 10 years. is there anyway to incorporate everything that other people have been doing for generations now? >> on the map inside -- all of these things for her to really partnering in reaching out to private industry. this is especially for not even geographical systems.

we're doing a lot of work with a variety of companies. we are planning. our great hope is to save the country money in about 2019 by continuously updating the address file. we think that can be done with a lot of new partnerships. so if we can do that, you'll see even more of that hopefully. >> i appreciate that, mr. chairman. i have to get to the next. >> i just want to say before you head for the next hearing, dr. coburn and i were here when the presentation was not his good in the news is not his good. and not in the 60s, but six years ago -- not even that, four years ago. we want to make it better. we have room for improvement. there we go. what does he say about me?

he says i'm one of those people in every pile of horse manure as a pony. it's one of many things he says about me. if i could come in maybe a couple questions for dr. groves. and then maybe one for mr. goldenkoff. maybe even one for mr. zinser and then we'll turn it over to her next panel. dr. groves, what is senses during to ensure that plans for internet response option will succeed in 2020 given our experience from 2010? >> well, we're doing a variety of things. it may be the watchword on this is integration. so i believe that the internet operations were using another sample surveys are relevant to internet usage in the 2020 decennial senses. we want to learn lessons from

those. secondly, the tricky thing for us this decade will be to do enough testing of the internet that will stay nimble on devices. so the devices that will access the internet in 2020 will be more twofold. some of them haven't been conceived of yet. we want a modern set of alternative tools, devices to access the internet because we think that the way to achieve this higher convenience. so we need a lot of tests of internet. little, smoltz test to learn incrementally and stay fresh. we can't walk into specific solutions. we are spending a lot of time right now getting the base architecture street. so these earlier sought to get the infrastructure of type clean or siege early articulated, but

allowed the device specific solutions to be unspecified at that time. get the architecture right and go forward and not the last moment, fix the device times. in a follow-up question. what are the risks that the senses has anticipated for internet response options and what actions they plan to mitigate these risks? >> well, i've talked already about the i.t. security side. and the mitigation on not actually are the things we are going through nonproduction sample surveys. so i am pretty sure i'm confident that our i.t. security group is staying current with all of the thread that we have on i.t. systems and they need to stay current and they need to pay attention to her internet has. i think the other unknown will be the reaction of the american

public, especially groups that are traditionally hard to enumerate to internet options as the decade goes by. as broadband access disperses throughout the different income groups, we need to watch in order to predict carefully how they are adopting to internet use. in sewers of these have to be wise on that so can estimate the costs which will be estimated to what proportion choose the internet for the 2020. >> mr. goldenkoff, we're going to talk a little bit more in this question or two about the internet. we see from dr. coburn's post over here that -- [inaudible] in england they have been using the internet and as it turns out i don't think they are the only country that's been using. some have done so with some

success. others have done so with failure. and first of all, i don't know if you mention a couple countries that would be good role models for us to look at come and see what doing right. baby will look to see what they did wrong. how do we engage other countries that have succeeded. my question here is how do we engage other counties -- how do we engage other countries in what they have succeeded where they failed? the national government association is something called the center for best practices and did some activity for governors to share what his work and help other states to learn. and i don't know that we have a center for best practices for each and site owners who want to learn how to do -- conduct a census every 10 years into it more accurately and more cost

effectively. support is in the right direction. how do we engage these things in countries that have done well and have not done well? >> on the internet alone? 's >> yup, yup. no, internet. >> canada has been using the internet and from other countries as well i believe, brazil is using the internet. i guess the census bureau -- i don't want to speak for her, but liaisons were folks -- liaisons from other countries. >> robert is ready. we have an ongoing interchange with statistics candidate would've been quite quite aggressive. we may have people up there right now preparing for theirs. we've gone back and forth. brazil is a very interesting dances last year because they use handheld devices for the entire country. so we sent a delegation down there. we are watching the u.k.

it turns out there's a small small family of sent dispute all around the world. they're nice people. >> all right. well, that's good to hear. maybe one for mr. zinser. the census bureau has variety of ongoing in place to measure the overall effectiveness of the 2010 designs. what steps should it take to ensure its researching, testing results drive decisions for future decennial operations? >> well, i think the evaluations we have underway right now are the best opportunity we have two know whether or not to send this was the quality. if you asked the question right now, with senses a success? i don't think you can actually answer the question until you get the results of their

evaluations. i think robert is right that the operations were a success and that the accounts were delivered on time. but in terms of the overall quality of the senses did not come i think we need to wait for those evaluations and not will inform you in terms of how good the senses actually was. >> okay. and dr. groves, but to you for another one if i could. i think i've made some mention here that the sent this is looking at a think vb six different design options for the 2020 senses. give us some idea what the census will decide on what criteria it will use to make his final decision. >> we anticipate that late 2015 into the 2016. , we would have enough of the findings that he outlines of the design could be articulated.

we are looking at right now six different alternatives and they won't go through all of them, but they vary on how we keep a -- how the address list works, how we keep it up, how we enumerate people, different modes at different sequences and then how we organize the management of the senses. how decentralized is good remember, we have 500 different local census offices this time versus how centralized could it be. that will determine infrastructure costs. so we're looking at all three of those dimensions and were nearly 10 cents each month -- as we get research findings, will be able to drop options and would love to keep you up-to-date their progress online until you are decision process and our recommendations. >> good common thank y