nguyen to the ninth circuit, ms. baker to the eastern district of arkansas, mr. lee to the northern district of illinois, we will have confirmed 83 kwraourbl nominees -- 83 judicial nominees during this congress. it's somewhat ironic that today, according to press accounts, the white house is holding a reform and strategy session with administration officials and 150 supporters from across the country concerned about judicial vacancy -- the judicial vacancy rate. i wonder if at this strategy session the white house took a look in the mirror when addressing the vacancy rate. only the president can make nominations to the senate. while we have a responsibility to advise and connecticut -- consent on those nominations, senators cannot fill vacancies unless people are nominated for those positions. i would note the president has

failed to do this in 47 of the 76 remaining vacancies, including 21 of 35 seats designated as judicial emergencies. this was more than 60% of the current vacancies with no nominee. the white house and the senate majority are fond of their claims that millions of americans are living in districts with vacancies. of course, what the other side fails to tell you is that 88 million americans live in judicial districts where vacancies exist because the president has failed to nominate judges. most of those seats have been vacant for more than a whole year. once again, if the white house is serious about judicial vacancies, it holds the key to nominating and filling those

vacancies. it has failed in too many instances to use that key. furthermore, according to press accounts, in its inhave itation, the white house accused republicans of subjecting consensus nominees to unprecedented delays and filibusters. this is a statement without factual basis and ignores the record of judicial nominations. i note that after today's confirmation, there are 12 nominees on the executive counter that might fall into the category of consensus nominees. seven nominees on the calendar had significant opposition in the committee and clearly are not consensus nominees the substantial majority of those 12 nominees were reported out of committee fewer than ten legislative days ago.

not only is there no filibuster against any of the consensus nominees, but i am not sure how there can be any accusation then of delay and particularly partisan delay. let me remind my colleagues on the other side of obstructionism delay in filibusters which they perfected. the history of president bush's nominees to the ninth circuit provides some examples. president bush nominated nine individuals to the ninth circuit. three of those nominations were filibustered. two of those filibusters were successful. the nominations of carolyn cool and william gary myers languished for years before being returned to the president. a fourth nominee, randy smith, waited over 14 months before finally being confirmed after his nomination was blocked and

returned to the president. after being renominated, he was finally confirmed unanimously. president obama, on the other hand, has nominated six individuals to the ninth circuit. only one of those nominees was subject to a cloture vote. after the vote failed, the nominee withdrew. today we confirm the third nomination of this president to the ninth circuit. those three confirmations took an average of about eight months from the date of nomination. for all of president obama's circuit nominees, the average time from nomination to confirmation is about 242 days. for president bush's circuit nominees, the average wait for confirmation was 350 days. one might ask why president bush was treated so differently with so much more delay than this president has been treated or

his nominees treated. another example of past democratic obstruction and delay is in arkansas. today we confirm president obama's nominee to the eastern district arkansas. within about six months of her nomination. i would note that president bush's j. leon holmes sat on the executive calendar for more than 14 months awaiting confirmation. from nomination, his confirms took over 17 months. again, why was president bush's nominees treated worse than this president's nominees? i can only conclude that the white house has selective memory or a different definition when it accuses republicans of unprecedented delay and obstructionism. i'm disappointed that the president continues to blame republicans for vacancies which have no nominee and chooses to follow the political strategy of

blaming rather than working with the senate to nominate consensus nominees. in other words, why isn't the president instead of having a conference on while there are vacancies taken the same amount of time to work up a few more to get the names up here so we can work on them? i'm going to put the remainder of my statement in the record, and the remainder of my statement addresses the qualifications of the nominees today which will confirmed. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, i rise today to speak in support of the nomination of john lee and jay thorpe to serve on the district court for the northern district of illinois. i have listened carefully to the statement made by the ranking republican on the senate judiciary committee. i would note several things. first, at this point in president george w. bush's first term, the democratic senate had approved 30 more judges that had

been -- than have been approved under the current situation with this divided senate. secondly, it would take 60 nominations to be filled by the end of the year, judicial nominations, for president obama to have received the same treatment as president george w. bush in his first term. 60. we could get a lot of that done today. right here are 22 nominations for the judiciary that have cleared the committee. if the senator from iowa to like to come to the floor and join me, we can make a joint unanimous consent request to bring all 22 up immediately. every one of them, all of whom have cleared the committee. and those senators who want to vote against those nominees do so, vote no. but unfortunately as we can see from this calendar, the names of the nominees languish on this calendar for months. literally for months. and many times pass with a voice vote or unanimous vote. it really does not speak well of

this process that we have reached this point, this slowdown. what many republicans are waiting for is the so-called thurman rule. it's not a rule written in the book but it refers to senator strom thurman of south carolina who kind of announced at one point of his career we'll stop considering judges at a certain point in an election year. i have been in the senate for so many years i have heard many different explanations about what the thurman rule means. i'm not sure anyone knows. all we know is in a political campaign year, politics rules. in this situation, many republicans are holding up perfectly fine nominees approved by democrats and republicans in committee for no other reason but the hope that they can win back the white house in november and fill the nominees with their favorites. i don't think that's fair to the nominees who have gone through the process, many of whom have cleared a bipartisan vote, and should be voted on in a timely fashion. let me speak to a particular issue that's addressed today by the nominee that's before us.

there are two nominees i had mentioned from illinois to fill vacancies in the northern district -- john lee and jay tharp. the chief judge of the northern district, jim holderman, sent a letter to me and senator kirk in february calling for mr. lee and mr. tharp to be confirmed without delay because of the heavy caseload in this court. senator kirk and i decided to work together on a bipartisan basis, and we did. we had a process that we both agreed on. he picked a group, a bipartisan group to come up with his nominee. i did the same on my side. but the understanding was that at the end of the day, neither of our nominees would move forward without the approval of the other senator, so in fact they were bipartisan choices, both of them. john lee is my choice, jay tharp is senator kirk's choice. we both support one another's choice. we believe both of these nominees have the experience, qualifications, temperament and integrity necessary to serve in the federal judiciary.

mr. lee and mr. tharp were both nominated on november 10, 2011, six months ago. they appeared together at a hearing before the judiciary committee in january. they were both reported out of committee in february in a bipartisan voice vote. now, there was an agreement reached between senators mcconnell and senator harry reid, the majority leader, about the nominees that we brought for a vote. i was surprised when it was announced in march that the lee and tharp nominations, which had been together all through the process, were separated. the deal or arrangement called for john lee to be scheduled for a confirmation vote by may 7, but at the insistence of the republican leadership, senator mcconnell, the deal did not include all the nominees on the senate calendar and it did not schedule a vote for mr. jay tharp, senator kirk's nominee. i believe that they should be

confirmed together, just as they were nominated together and went through the committee together. as soon as i heard about this so-called arrangement, i went to first senator kyl and then to senator mcconnell and said don't do this. don't hold up senator kirk's nominee. he's in the hospital. now he's home, thank goodness, recovering from a stroke. we did this together. we're working together. don't separate these two fine men. there is no reason to do it. but i understand that this was the arrangement and they didn't want to change it, even to help senator kirk under these circumstances. they wanted to do only two nominees a week over a seven-week period of time, and the cutoff, the line they drew was unfortunately between mr. lee and mr. tharp. well, i was going to make unanimous consent request today to include mr. tharp along with mr. lee on the vote that we're about to take. there is only one reason i'm not. we have received an ironclad assurance from the senate

republican floor staff that mr. tharp is going to be called on a timely basis during this work period. i'm going to hold them to it. i don't want to embarrass anyone, but it bothers me that the nominee of senator kirk is being held up by the republican side of the aisle when it should be voted on today. there is no reason why it should not be voted on today. we should vote for both of them, but because a word has been given to me by a staff member whom i respect very much, i won't make this unanimous consent request. but let me say this. if something happens -- i don't know what it might be, but i hope it doesn't, but if something happens, i'm prepared to come to the floor and make that unanimous consent request, not only on behalf of senator kirk but on behalf of my state and on behalf of my own interests in making sure that our federal judiciary has a complement of qualified people. let me say a few words about each nominee, extraordinarily good nominees. john lee was nominated to fill the spot that judge david carr

held -- core, rather. mr. lee is currently a partner at a law firm where he practices primarily in commercial litigation. he is the son of a coal miner and a nurse. he emigrated to this country, into chicago at a very young age. from humble beginnings, he attended harvard college where he graduated magna cum laude, earning his law degree from harvard law school. after law school, mr. lee worked as a trial attorney in the department of justice's environmental and natural resources division. after his tenure at the justice department, he worked in private practice, eventually joining the firm he currently works with. his law practice has prowfd on antitrust, intellectual property, environmental and other complex commercial litigation matters. he has received numerous awards and recognition, including leading lawyer from 2008-2011 from the leading lawyers network. he has an outstanding network of community service including work as director of the board of directors, asian human service

of chicago, service on the board of directors of the calprs legal hotline, from low-income cook county residents and his service on the board of the asian american bar association of greater chicago. it's an historic nomination for john lee. upon confirmation, he would be the first korean american ever to serve as a federal article 3 judge in illinois and only the second to serve in that capacity in our entire nation's history. let me say a word about jay tharp. again, i'm disappointed that i couldn't persuade the republican leadership to include him today, but i have their assurance that he will be called during this work period. jay tharp was nominated to fill the chicago district court judgeship opening by the senior status of judge blanch manning. mr. tharp currently is a partner in the chicago office of mier brown, coleader of the security enforcement practice. born into a military family as

the son of a lieutenant colonel in the marine corps. he attended duke university on an rotc scholarship, received his undergraduate degree suma cum laude and was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the marine corps. jay tharp served active duty with the marines for six years, achieving the rank of captain earning the navy achievement medal and the navy midshipman's award. after his military service, mr. tharp attended northwestern university law school, serving on the law review. upon graduation, he clerked on the seventh circuit, then worked as an assistant u.s. attorney for six years in chicago. after his tenure as federal prosecutor, he joined mayor brown where his practice specializes in complex commercial litigation and criminal investigation. he has received numerous recognitions. he served as adjunct professor of trial advocacy at the northwestern university law school and serves as a member of the law fund board at northwestern which oversees fundraising efforts by law school alumni. two extraordinarily good

nominees, went through the bipartisan process together, approved by senator kirk and approved by me, went through their investigative period and the white house together, came to the committee together, were reported out together, came to the calendar together but were separated out. that's unfair. and i hope that by the end of this work period that mr. tharp will join john lee on the federal bench. they're two exceptionally good nominees and on behalf of senator kirk i'll do everything to make sure this happens in the days ahead. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. pryor: mr. president, i rise today to speak on behalf of a friend of mine who is going to be voted on here by the senate shortly for u.s. district court judge for the eastern district of arkansas. but before i do, i need to just offer a few comments on what the

senator from iowa and the senator from illinois said a few moments ago that i agree with. it's taking too long to get these nominees to this point in the process. there are too many games that are played, and from my standpoint both sides are at fault. and i would hope that my colleagues would stop playing games and stop even the blame game but let's get to work and let's help clear up the backlog in the federal judiciary. right now it is underresourced. we do have a judicial emergency in this particular district that i'm about to talk about, and they say justice delayed is justice denied. we need these judges on the bench and i would hope that the partisanship would stop. in arkansas, we are very, very fortunate to have very strong federal judges. we have a history of that, and part of the reason we do is because our judges really are for the most part nonpolitical.

sure, they come from various backgrounds, but there's a consensus on these judges they are going to be good judges and that's the tradition in our state. we have a total of eight district court judges in our state and kris baker fits perfectly in that line. she has a true record of distinguished service in the legal community. she's well known and well respected, and she will be a great u.s. district court judge for the eastern district of arkansas. the court right now nationwide is about 20% understaffed, and that's why it's great to have someone who has an a.b.a. well qualified recommendation to go along with her nomination. she came out of the judiciary committee on a very large bipartisan vote. and the reason is she's been with a mid-sized law firm in little rock since 2000. she regularly accepts prisoner and other appointment cases from

the federal courts. she's played a leadership role not just in the legal community but in other organizations in the larger community, and she is just going to be a fantastic addition to the federal bench, not just for arkansas but really nationwide. whenever i look at these nominees i ask myself three questions. first, can they be fair and impartial? i think for kris the answer is yes. second, do they have their credentials to bring to the bench to really represent the best and the brightest in the legal community, in her case the answer is yes. and third and this is especially important for a trial court judge, do they have the proper judicial temperament. for kris baker the answer to all three is a resounding yes. i would ask my colleagues to give her a favorable voice vote, that tells you how noncontroversial she is, and what a great credit she's been to the legal community and how

excited we are to have her as a member of the federal judiciary. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president,? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: i rise to speak in strong support of judge jacqueline nguyen's nomination. this was unanimously approved by the judiciary committee. she is an outstanding jurist with a ten-year track record of success as a trial judge in my state. i recommended judge nguyen to president obama to the district court in 2009. after my bipartisan judicial selection committee gave her its highest recommendation. the senate confirmed her then unanimously, 97-0 in 2009. i have no doubt that she will be an outstanding circuit court judge, and i hope my colleagues will support her nomination.

judge nguyen earned her bachelor's degree from occidental college and her law degree from ucla school of law. after law school, she practiced commercial law for four years which the -- with the lay firm of music, peeler and garrett. she then moved into public service, becoming an assistant united states attorney in los angeles. during her seven years there, she prosecuted a broad array of crimes, including violent crimes, narcotics trafficking, organized crime, gun case perks and all kinds of fraud. in 2000 she received a special commendation from f.b.i. direct or louis freeh for obtaining the first conviction never the united states against a defendant for providing material support to a designated terrorist organization. the justice department recognized her with numerous other awards and commendations

for superior performance. and she was promoted to deputy chief of the general crime section. in 2002, governor gray davis appointed judge nguyen to the los angeles superior court, where she established a track record of success as a distinguished jurist. in 2009 president obama nominated her to the district court on my recommendation, and she was confirmed unanimously. over nearly ten years as a state and federal judge, judge nguyen has presided over thousands of cases, including 75 jury trials and 12 bench trials. she prizes fairness and integrity and treats all parties fairly and with respect. those who know judge nguyen, including two former united states attorneys, appointed by president george w. bush have praised judge nguyen for her

first-rate legal mind and judicial temperament. deborah yang, who led the united states attorney's office from 2002 to twieks 2006, after -- to 2006, after being appointed by president george w. bush submitted a letter to the judiciary committee in support of judge nguyen's nomination. yang says she would make an excellent federal court judge. and she also reports that her reputation among colleagues is tremendous. thomas o'brien, who is appointed u.s. attorney by president bush in 2007, has also submitted a letter endorsing judge nguyen's nomination. o'brien says that judge nguyen handled complex and controversial cases with technical finesse and grace. and that judge nguyen is a highly qualified nominee whose intelligence --, intelligent, skilled, and exercises sound judgment. but she also has an inspiring

life story. she was born in south vietnam in the midst of the vietnam war. she came to america at the age of 10. her family lived in a tent in a san diego refugee camp for three months before nofg los angeles where -- moving to los angeles where her parents worked two to three jobs at a time. judge nguyen and her fine -- five siblings helped their parents after school and on weekends. they helped to clean dental offices and to peel and cut apples. they helped run a small doughnut shop, which their parents scrimped and saved to open. judge nguyen worked her way up through school as a lawyer and prosecutor and as a trial judge. if she is confirmed today, she will be the first asian american female federal court judge, and i am proud to express my very strong support for her

nomination. i'd like to conclude by expressing my view that it is absolutely critical that cooperation on judicial nominations continue. nearly 10% of judicial positions are currently vacant -- vacant, mr. president, as you well know, twice as many as when president bush left office. this high vacancy rate is today being felt more than anywhere else by states in the ninth circuit. california and arizona are home to some of the busiest federal trial courts in the nation. this means businesses, individuals, and prosecutors already are struggling with severely overburdened federal courts. the ninth circuit is also the busiest federal appellate court in the country. it has over 1,400 appeals pending per three-judge panel.

the most of any circuit by a wide margin, and over twice the average of other circuits. the judicial conference of the united states has declared each ninth circuit vacancy a judicial emergency. judge nguyen's confirmation today will help ease the burden, but it will not do enough. paul watford is another outstanding ninth circuit nominee from california. he was approved by the judiciary committee three months ago, based on the calendar, he should be the next circuit court nominee to receive a confirmation vote in this body. he has sterling qualifications, he's worked as a federal prosecutor, and an appellate attorney at a prestigious law firm. he clerked for chief judge alex coglin i ask, for ruth bader ginsburg. he's a mod ral rath nominee,

support on both sides of the aisle, including two former presidents of the los angeles chapter of the federal society. so i hope that the national will consider mr. watford's nomination very soon. it is a judicial emergency. so once again i thank the leaders on both sides for agreeing to bring judge nguyen's nomination to the floor and i urge my colleagues to support this nomination. and i hope we will continue to confirm highly qualified nominees for our federal courts, which is especially important to the ninth circuit. i thank the chair and i yield the floor. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. conrad: i ask unanimous consent to terminate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. conrad: and i'd ask for the yeas and nays on the nomination nominations -- just on the first one, the yeas and nays on the first nomination. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the question is on the

nomination of -- on the nguyen nomination. the clerk will call the roll. vote: votevote: vote

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or to change their vote? seeing none, the ayes are 91, the nays are 3. the nomination is confirmed. the question is on the baker nomination. all in favor say aye.

opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. the question is now on the lee nomination. all those in favor vote aye. opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motions to reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate will resume legislative session. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. earlier today senator durbin in the senate judiciary subcommittee on the constitution and civil rights, held a hearing in cleveland to examine efforts to that could hinder the ability of ohioans to exercise one of their fundamental constitutional rights, the right to vote. these eferlts under the guys of -- guise of preventing fraud are part of cynical effort to impede access to the ballot. it areels a number of commonsense measures that assist people with voting. i served as secretary of state

of ohio charged with administering elections so i understand what goes into ensuring the fundamental right to vote inherent in that responsibility is ensuring that voting is accessible and free of indim days -- intimidation and roadblocks. over a period of decades, ohio legislators undertook a bipartisan and by underscore that word, bipartisan effort to help ohioans get access to the polls. when i was secretary of state we had significant assistance from republicans as we made voting laws work for huge numbers of people pepco we understood that ohioans had priorities pulling in many directions so we sawtd to make registration accessible. utility bills. people could register,with the electric company included forms in utility bills. mcdonald's requests printed a million tray liners so people could fill them out to register to vote.

at bureau of motor breaks people could vote there -- vehicles, people could vote there. there was done bipartisanly, the legislature when acting would expand this right to vote, make sure this right to vote was protected. generally bipartisan. today rather than protecting the right to vote, we're seeing brazen attempts to under-- undermine it. we're told that this bill and laws like it will reduce costs and reduce the risk of voter fraud. the overwhelming effort indicates that voter fraud is virtually nonexistence and these laws will make it harder and more costly for ohioans to exercise their right to vote and more costly for the election system, messenger taxpayers, county boards of elections, all of that, too. voters are simply not going to wake up one morning in cleveland and vote and then drive to elyria and then vote and then drive to norwalk and vote and

then to medina and vote and mansfield and vote. people aren't going to defraud the system that way. why? they're going to get caught, probably, and secondsly, they're going to jail, all to take the risk of giving president obama or mitt romney five more votes in the state of 11 million people. that's not going to happen. yet the people that are attacking our voting rights are claiming individuals are going to do things like that to defraud. college students voting in college and then voting back in their hometown. people aren't going to do that because the disincentives are too strong. there is no reason so you can vote one stra extra time you would possibly do that. the new -- the new law repeals -- this is what's disappointing to me, madam president. this new law repeals what was a bipartisan effort in 2006. 2006 in response to some election problems of 2004 and

the presidential race where people stood in long, long lines to vote and there were other problems, 2006, the republican house and the republican senate in columbus and the republican governor with support from democrats, so it was clearly bipartisan, passed voter tax reforms set up early voting. one week where voting and voter registration and early voting overlapped so people could register and vote during that week in early october. did other things that made voting a little bit more accessible, registration and voting more accessible. but the new law, in spite of that, the -- in spite of the consensus in ohio about voting, now there is an effort to undercut that consensus. first the law significantly reduces the early voting window. it takes away friday, saturday -- saturday, sunday, monday voting before the election when over 100,000 people voted in ohio that year. in 2008. it was made despite the fact

this reduction in early voting made despite the fact that evidence overwhelmingly indicates that limiting early voting will actually cost taxpayers boards of elections money. cutting sunday voting was intended to suppress voting. on the sunday before the election, ohioans who work long hours during the week often go to the polls after church, fulfilling their civic and spiritual obligations on the same day. by ending early voting the lines outside polling stations on location day will only get longer, the costs will only increase. this increases frustration and limits voting. another burden is that it bars poll workers from performing one of their basic functions, help -- helping voters find their right precinct. this law no longer requires that pollworkers assist a confused, elderly, disabled or young voter in getting their correct

precinct. we've tried to save money, more people voted earlier, relieving pressure on election day, and they've combined voting precincts. you'll have fewer precincts in the same county and have to hire fewer poll workers. sometimes they combine these precincts in these voting stations into one building so people might walk in to a polling station and go to the wrong table and under the law now the poll worker is not required to help that person and say no, you can't vote here but you can vote across in the room next door at this church or at this school. so someone will today might walk in and the poll worker will say you're not eligible to vote in this precinct and you'll walk home and not vote. this law discourages in many ways because these poll workers are people that live in the neighborhood, it discourages neighbors from helping neighbors. it's a solution in search of a

problem. it is in fact a solution in search of a problem. there was consensus in ohio that things needed to change after 2004. the laws enacted in 2006 led to shorter lines, more clarity and less frustration for voters. while none of the changes i mentioned today make it impossible to vote, they install -- they build burdens to voting, burdens that have no good reason. that will mean fewer minority voters, fewer young voters, fewer elderly voters, fewer disabled voters. that may be what some politicians in this town want but it's not what the ohio -- what people of ohio want. ohio deserves better when it comes to protecting our most fundamental constitutional rights. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: madam president, i understand there are four bills at the desk. i ask for their first reading en bloc. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the titles of the bill for the first time en bloc. the clerk: h.r. 2050, an act to authorize a continued use of

certain water diversions located on national forest system land and so forth and for other purposes. h.r. 2240, an act to authorize exchange of land or interest in land between lowell national historic park and the city of lowell and in the qelt of massachusetts and for other purposes. h.r. 4628, an act to extend student loan interest rates for the undergraduate federal direct stafford loans. h.r. 4849, an act to direct the secretary of the interior to issue commercial use authorizations to commercial stock operators and so forth and for other purposes. mr. brown: i now ask for a second reading en bloc and i request to my own request en bloc. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the proposals will be read on the next legislative day. mr. brown: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that question when the senate completes its business today it adjourns until tuesday, may 8 at 10:00 a.m., following the

prayer and pledge plej, the journal of proceedings approved to date date, the morning business deemed expired and the time for the two leaders reserved for use later if the day. that the senate retsunami consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 2343, the stop student loan interest rate hike act, with the time equally divided and controlled by the leaders or are in designees and following the remarks. two leaders the majority twoal the first 30 minutes and the republicans control the second 30 minutes. and that following the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to s. 2343, the senate recess until 2:15 to allow for the weekly caucus meetings. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: the first vote tomorrow will be at noon on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to s. 2343, the stop student loan interest rate hike act. if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until tuesday, may 8, at 10:00 a.m.

as always, i would like to thank mr. and mrs. schwartz for their support, which has an embolus to invite so many prominent authors and historians to the society. i know mr. schwartz is here. is mrs. schwartz year? lets thank them. [applause] thank you so much. [applause] there are the most wonderful sponsors. the program tonight will last an hour and include the question and answer session. toward the end of the program lesley stahl will invite audience members to approach to standing mikes in either i'll where we will have them set up.

we ask you to do this so that the speakers on stage and everyone in the audience can hear you. also, our programs are purported to cover corporate and posted online. we want our listeners all over the world to hear you. on to introducing a wonderful speakers tonight. lesley stahl has been a correspondent for cbs 60 minutes and march 1991. prior to joining 60 minutes cbs news white house correspondent during the carter american, and george h. w. bush presidencies and served as moderator of the public affairs program. she has a connects -- collection of emmy awards for interviews and reporting, including a lifetime achievement emmy given in september 2003 and wrote her experiences covering washington and a book, reporting live.

no, her latest gig is as one of the hosts of well radio on sirius. also joining tonight's program is joe klein who writes the weekly political column in the arena for time magazine and is a regular contributor to time on-line political blog swampland. a former washington correspondent for the new yorker, political reporter for newsweek, and political columnist for new york magazine. he is a two-time winner of the national had landreau board for best magazine column and the author of several books, including the acclaimed novel primary colors and most recently politics lost. how democracy was trivialized by people who think we're stupid. richard reeves is senior lecturer at the annenberg school for communication at the

university of southern california and author and a syndicated columnist. he is the former chief political correspondent of the new york times and a former national editor and columnist for esquire and new york magazine. also made six television films, winning the indy, columbia dupont, and george foster peabody award the author of the renowned biography president kennedy and president reagan and is currently working on a book about the internment of japanese and japanese-americans by the united states government during world war ii. comeback next year and we will be having an back. we are also pleased to welcome back beverly gates, as the sip professor of 20th-century u.s. century at university where she teaches american political history. she is the author of the tables exploded, story of america and its first age of terror and is

currently working on her next book, g man, j. edgar hoover and the american century in addition to teaching and research, she has written for numerous journals and magazines, including the "wall street journal" and the new york times and appears as an historical commentator on the pbs newshour where i discovered her and invited her to come. she has been with the several times. before we begin i would ask that you please turn off your cell phones and electronic devices. please note that photography is not permitted with the exception of the new york historical society photographer to read now please join me in look menard guest. [applause] >> thank you. can you hear us? so, don't you just love the new york historical society? can you believe that we have

this panel? [applause] so i am going to guess that everybody here, and we are filled up to the very top up here. you are all political junkies, read? my husband always says that the only time anybody ever knows what they're really talking about is when they talk shop talk. tonight we're going to have the most explicit because we have the most brilliant political thinkers and writers that we could gather on a stage anytime anywhere. so can we start with the issue of inequality, class warfare, and the buffett greuel. [laughter] i always hear that canada -- tended to bring up the inequalities you never get any mileage out of it. so-called aspirational country. i am always baffled by it. i don't understand why it doesn't get traction. joe, can you discuss this issue

and tell us whether you think president obama is actually going to get anywhere with this? >> first, let me say what a relief it is to be here after six months on the road with the republican candidate. [laughter] [applause] on the other hand you guys look like a real tea party audience. [laughter] you know, inequality is not a big seller in american politics. has not been. if you look at the polling data, you know, people are more interested in providing an opportunity for people who have not had them than providing money and greed distributing wealth in america. however, let me just say that the political spectrum during the last 30 years has tilted so far to the right to that at this point we have gone beyond questions of redistribution and inequality to questions of

simple justice where the wealthiest americans are contributing less and less to the society. the very idea of progressivity, which came with the income tax in 1913, is in peril. so i think that there is some mileage for the president's ear as long as he emphasizes things in addition to the redistribution of wealth, like the redistribution of opportunity. >> just change the language. beverly, talk about this issue historic week. has it ever worked? are there times when inequality is so out of black that it actually has worked? >> it is funny. i have been teaching a course at yale. 1900-1945. when people think about moments when inequality have become

really big issues, they tend to like the 1930's which is not actually quite the right place to look kind of look back to the progressive era. the first 20 years. a look at the kinds of folks with radical challenges in the street but this moment of the income-tax actually coming into being as really being a moment where that is more in conversation with the sorts of things we're seeing today. the election of 1912. actually, most of the major candidates, one of the big famous elections in american history where you have for candid it's all actually running around. so he is the one. he was a democrat. theodore roosevelt running not as a republican candidate. he had already been president, but he is running as a sort of progressive will lose a challenger to the republican candidate who is william howard

taft. then you have eugene thomas is the only election in american history where a socialist have kind of played a significant role. what is interesting about that election is that kind of with the exceptions of taft all of the candidates are running with that class language. real mobilization around that issue. the 30's and up being somewhat different. we all think of franklin roosevelt running around a class language in 1932. ..

that people would rather have the chance of getting rich than face the reality of being poor? >> but it's so counter intuitive. i covered an election two years ago in washington state with an initiative on the ballot to pass the top 1% in the state of washington. both bill gates and his father were supporting this initiative to put a surtax on multi millionaires. and it didn't pass and i was astonished it didn't pass. but isn't it counterintuitive? >> the thing that's happening is that over time people have come to see the big government, big

business, big labour as equally impressive, and so there is a fair amount of sentiment out there about feeding the beast of what ever sort and so when people pay their taxes they think they are giving money to poor people rather than themselves which is what they are doing in the form of old age entitlements. >> here is another issue that i'm confused about. i keep hearing we are a centrist country and that candidates have treated they get through their primaries have to pay it back to the center because that's where we are you have a republican party that is in no way in the center in terms of their issues clearly out of the mainstream on rolling back, really rolling back 70 years of legislation.

>> they are running against the progressive era. estimate the interesting thing is when you read these come if you read magazines like the "national review" and listen to them on fox and on the radio they are reeling these days about what role wilson, of lyndon johnson. >> what are dave railing about woodrow wilson? >> pictures. >> the idea is woodrow wilson was the birth of progressivism and it's true i wrote a piece for the times a few years ago bollenbach in particular. there's other sort of interesting characters coming again against or percolating summer who was for many years notorious. he's a writer in the late 19th century who wrote a kind of active defense of inequality as a great thing and with the ought to be as a sort of spokesman of

the social darwinism. >> i'm not even talking about the inequality now. moving on to privatizing social security, abolishing the fed coming and if we are a centrist country. >> its 60-40. it's been a democrat, republican is 50/50. every poll is down the middle what of the issue is is down the middle. why we say we are a centrist country and the candidates have to put it towards the middle? >> i think we are a schizophrenic country when you look at horse races and personal identification, they say that in terms of their more

self-described conservative stance self-described liberals in our country but a great many of those people who were screaming about socialism want to see medicare stay as it is by 80-20. by 70 -- 83 code 20 they want to see social security stay where it is. by 1910 they want to see politicians to compromise rather than stick with their positions. what we have allowed to happen -- believe me, i go out into the country and talk to civilians on road trips and they are all kind of astonished at the power we in the media have given the tea party folks. we say we know who those folks are. they are the ones that show what that the city council and complain when. >> they are running congress. >> welcome that's in part because you give people a choice

between nothing and more government they are going to choose nothing. look at the last two elections and this shows how fractured our system is. by 80 to 20% of americans said they were satisfied with the health care if they were receiving so what does barack obama do? he goes and tries to and succeeds in producing a pretty good universal health care plan which was originally a republican plan. he is clobbered for this, utterly clobbered by the republicans. they have a triumphant 2010 election and what do they do? they come in and try to destroy medicare which is approved by 80% of the country. where is this coming from? it's coming from the two bases, the democratic base, from nancy pelosi's democrats in the house, and then from john boehner's republicans in the house.

>> and us. >> the media. >> it's the story we go after. >> can i get some kind of friction going? >> i'm going to make a threat this is going to make sense i promise. you said they are running against the 60. when you said that and we got diverted, sorry -- i'm thinking of them bringing up contraception. >> rick santorum talking about woodstock. >> what was that all about? >> they lost and think the country went to hell. a lot of the issues, there should be a column called sex in the 60's rather than in the city because that's what they talk about. i don't mean all people talk about it but politicians particularly in states that the believe half a loaf catholics, a catholic voting is in that

different, but they think they can find some -- >> is that you? [laughter] >> they still talk about those. >> but can it work and gain traction? >> i think they are committing suicide. spinet maureen dowd said people understand like sex. [laughter] >> you'll get mitt romney's campaign and he came out of the box strong. he was talking about his greatest strength and obama's greatest weakness which was the economy and the notion of managing government. they always forget about the part of omb that's managing the government that they have making sure they get rid of older useless regulations.

they couldn't tell the presidential campaigns, so embarrassing. but the speech actually got worse as he went along because he was lured away from his strength in to talking about things like immigration and contraception. the first thing contraception came up in the debate, the dalian sawyer debate he had a great answer and said no one cares about this. rick santorum brings it up and so mitt romney gets into the thick of it saying he voted for planned parenthood. one of the few things a human being would have for liking rick santorum. [laughter] >> if you've listened to what we have had to say so far you would think that obama is going to walk away with this. let's talk for a minute about --

>> we left of the fact republicans change the rules and citizens united and they are ripped apart, the republican party in the reason we thought about republicans they've been running for six months. >> beverley, citizens united. >> citizens united, we are still waiting to see what's going to happen but there's all sorts of structural changes that have been occurring over the past 20 or 30 years not just citizens united but money and politics and around how congress operates the parties are structured but i think really in many ways to explain a lot of the things we've seen over the last four years in terms of what it is that obama is able to do and what it is that he is not able

to do some sort of like the discussion in washington seems geared towards the particular interest and sorts of obstructionism to the rest of the country. read this to the degree of the tea party is trying to get at something that is substantive. it's that sense of disconnect. >> when i hear citizens united, i think the coax brothers. i fink the power of a very small number of people i think this is what you are suggesting a small number of people -- >> that's part of the rulings that made the republican candidates stay in so long that they didn't do well, they didn't get any and they were gone. >> case in point, gingrich.

sheldon adelson, who is the loss vegas casino magnate and a single issue patron, he is vehemently throw that netanyahu, for settlements, and high iran and he shoveled $10 million to keep new gingrich going during the first four or five months of this year. to me the moment it became apparent is the moment i stopped listening and i knew in for a long time and admired his creativity. she's a complete jerk when it comes to politics. when you have a single payer system. to the fire which we should do more of the lose credibility. >> i just want to weigh in and

say that history professors across america new gingrich is no longer in the race and is no longer a symbol of our profession. [applause] can we stay on the very wealthy being able to pour so much money now in the campaign directed to candidates have their own ads on the air be able to be so vicious with distorting negative ads and how this is tilting this campaign in a direction and a way that we haven't seen before? >> it's part of a continuing trend. the last book book i wrote was about how the need to get on the air on television created the

need to raise money and this whole industry of people who told you how to spend the money on television all of these consultants and spend my sisters and pollsters and so on it's been going on for a long time. it is citizens united but if you look at say the democratic party position on wall street over the last 30 years during at which time the financial community has fundamentally distorted american capitalism away from making progress and towards making deals the democrats are complex set people like bob rubin are not poor, and the rest of the crew of the democratic investment bankers that put come helped fund bill clinton and barack obama. >> so it's both sides. the point is what about the rest of us? it's so skewing and now the court has made the decision.

estimate it's not just the money which is alarming if you look back to 1896 and william mckinley, that scene is the first moment of really big money and politics and push back against and this is not just the money it is also the lack of transparency, the grips with very innocuous sounding names you don't know where your money is going except that we have good. >> it's not for nothing that the mckinley campaign was karl rove's favorite campaign in american history. >> do you all see that we will

enter an era in which we will begin to push back against this? >> the system is breaking as we see it because the republican party is not going to be united on anything except polling and there's going to be more pressure for different kinds the political rules and regulations are the contracts between the republican and democratic party to preserve each other. when you get to the presidential love what seems the pattern the new guys always win whether it's karl rove were james carville. >> i've done it through the same campaign again and again and it's so clear the republicans

didn't know what the rules were. we let that proportional representation they jumped on to have a long campaign. >> let's talk about some of the issues that are out there that will really seriously influence the way that this election is going to go, and the first one is the gender. >> you can find the rest of this on line as we take you to the house budget committee for the markup of the replacement bill to deal with the sequestration of the defense department budget cuts. >> we will proceed with mr. van hollen's amendment which will have 20 minutes on each side, 40 minutes equally divided, and amendment number two ms. mccollum and how were equally divided and that will be the remainder for this evening's markup. >> think you very much mr. chairman i just had a proposal from mr. garate if you accept one of the two.

i have an amendment at the desk. >> an amendment offered by mr. van hollen taking a fair approach to reducing the deficit and replacing the sequestered. >> recognized for 15 minutes. >> this goes to the heart of the disagreement that we have had in this committee and this congress throughout this period which is not whether or not we should reduce our long-term deficit but how we deutsch, and we propose to do it in a balanced and fair way rather than take the lopsided approach set forth first in the house republican budget and again today in your approach of reconciliation. we believe first of all of our budget needs to encourage and promote additional economic

growth. we have seen the economy improved steadily over the last 25 months and recall when the president was sworn in back in january, 2009 the economy was in a total freefall. we were losing over 800,000 jobs per month. we were on a plummeting rate of - 8.9% gross domestic product. trillions of dollars in people's retirement savings have been lost compared to where they were in 2007 and the deficit was projected at an all-time high of $1.3 trillion. that's when the president was sworn in. since that time and through extraordinary measures taken by the president and earlier congress and with a great resilience and steadfast we've been able to stop the freefall, turn the corner and began

declining out of that treaty poll. we've now seen 25 consecutive months of positive private sector job growth. that's good news but it's certainly not good enough. we know we have a long way to go which is why our priority as we stood together a budget is to sustain and boost the fragile economy and help put people back to work which is why the budget that we proposed in the house focused on jobs, including the enactment of the president's jobs plan which he submitted to this congress we back in september and is still waiting here for a vote. we were able to pass a piece of that plan, the payroll tax cut for 160 million americans after i might add some foot-dragging but in any event we were able to get that done. there remainder of the plan

including significant investments in infrastructure has not come to a vote in the house of representatives and we face over 16% unemployment in the construction industry. we have lots of roads and bridges and transit waste that seem to be modernized so it is a simple win-win to move forward on that proposal and we are discouraged by the fact we've not had a chance to have a vote on that and the reason that's important for the deficit is that the congressional budget office with nonpartisan congressional budget office tells us that a full we third of the current deficit is as a result of the fact the economy is in full employment

to rivlin domenici and others that says the only credible way you can get there is through a combination of cuts as well as additional revenues, revenues generated by closing a lot of corporate tax loopholes, revenues generated by asking folks with the very highest income of the latter to return to the pain about the same share they were during the clinton years when the economy was booming and 20 million jobs created so that's what this amendment is all about. it says will stick a balanced approach over the next ten years and, kutz with revenues generated by closing loopholes and ending tax breaks and let's do it that way because if you don't take a balanced approach will you do is end up trying to

deal with the budget deficit on the backs of middle-income americans and seniors and it's pretty simple math. if you say you are going to exempt the folks at the highest end of the letter from sharing more responsibly from deficit reduction it means you have to do things that are done in the republican budget year to end the medicare guarantee, you have to slash medicaid by over $800 billion you have to slash food and nutrition programs you to take all those measures whereas if you take a balanced approach, you don't have to balance the budget on the backs of seniors and on the backs of vulnerable populations, and you also can make if you take a balanced approach important investments that are necessary to keep our economy strong, investments in education, investments and a national infrastructure, investments in science and research. and let's be clear, we have now

i think it's close to 100 per cent of the members of the house republican members of the house have signed the pledge by grover norquist that says not 1 penny, not 1 penny generated from closing a tax loophole may go to reducing the deficit. not 1 penny can we ask of the folks at the high end of the income scale to go to the purpose of deficit reduction it hits everything and everyone else. we are proposing number one to take a balanced approach, we support the idea of getting rid of the sequester and we agree that it is a meat axe approach to read we think we should replace not just for one year but in the reconciliation bill before us does and replace it for ten years and the

uncertainty when we hear the next amendment, the sequester, the republican approach leaves in place to sequester on some things like on medicare. so we propose to replace the entire sequester with a balanced approach, and that's the basis for this amendment. i now yield to ms. schwartz. >> thank you very much and i think for a ranking member for his leadership and leading a budget process that does call for a balanced approach and focuses and the democrats on the fact that we are doing what every non-partisan commission on the right and left, conservative

and liberal have said we need to do, which is to cut spending, and of course the democrats have agreed to cut spending and we are dealing with that of course today as how we deal it but really looks at deficit reduction in a serious way that fought for make sure we do nothing but harm the economic recovery that we are in coming and continues to make the kind of investments that make our country economically competitive in the future and makes us great which is growing the middle class and putting an environment free job growth and make sure that we are competitive. i see this often in the budget committee that a budget has to be about being responsible and reducing the deficit, but it's also to meet our obligations to our seniors, to our families and to our future and has to make targeted investments that grow the economy.

we've said it over and over again we offer many times where we've said that we are willing to have the kind of conversations where we can hopefully get a place we can agree on the budget but this isn't the way we are going to do it. this rejects a balanced approach. it rejects the notion that we can raise revenue at all, any kind of closure of the tax loophole is rejected on the other side. this notion that we would consider at some point that they've never offered one. they've never said here's one that we will do. well we've agreed to some spending cuts we should agree to every spending cut. we agreed to some spending cuts we didn't agree to everyone. you may not agree to every tax loophole but give us some, you know, look at some would you agree to some of the cuts on the middle class tax payers provide to the oil and gas industry? no. they look at the cuts to the

subsidies yes, but not right now. it's always sort of an excuse. let me just say we need to reject what i consider a seals approach to a balanced deficit reduction and economic growth strategy which is what we are looking at. so the amendment is consistent i guess i have to give that to the republicans they are consistent with failing to consider working with us in a balanced approach to the serious deficit reduction and economic growth. the approach today that you have heard reflects this refusal to the approach of balance and a balanced way, and it demonstrates the refusal to be willing to tackle any kind of revenue increases so this takes a fair balanced approach and reduces the deficit and replaces the sequester for all of the ten years, and again it does it in a

way that doesn't hurt the middle class and grows the middle class and makes the right investment and asks all sectors of the budget to share which is the wealthiest among us to share that the deficit while we protect some of those important obligations that we have made to the seniors and medicare and social security for our children to their education and to the businesses in terms of infrastructure going forward. i'm sorry that we are not doing this anymore jointly. one day i want to see a budget that is done in a way that is negotiated but truly this is a strong different approach in terms of who we are standing up for in america on this budget and the response of the sequestered reflect that. i stand with the ranking member and would look forward to seeing of you on the other side to do so as well.

>> i thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue. one of my concerns in this process is the way that we are treating education. it seems to me the we need to be doing more in education and investing more in education for pre-k2 postgrad, that if we are to be competitive in the future years we need a workforce that is fully developed in which every young person is able to get all the education and they are willing to work for to achieve their full god-given potential, and i fear the approach being taken which is such an unbalanced approach jeopardize is the educational future for many talented young people in america today. i was with a group of early childhood decatur's -- educators

seeing the immense potential of these young people, the potential ic in my own young granddaughter and her desire to burn, an investment in head start instead of reducing the commitment to a head start is the way to go. we need to work to improve and strengthen the education available through the program through some of the yearly s.t.a.r.t. initiatives for the youngest americans but adopting a budget that doesn't put some emphasis on early learning we've had testimony in this committee from the leader of the federal reserve and other business leaders about a dollar invested in education pays off to the country this is true of public education they're making some cutbacks in the educational arena our willingness to invest

in what should be a race to the top trying to improve the quality of the public schools and supporting our teachers seems to be a place that we need special emphasis by ford on the ways and means committee on what is called the more education tax credit on the american education tax opportunity tax credit. i think it needs to be expanded. it allows individuals to decide whether they want to invest in higher education or some other post high school and education and gives them the means to do that with $25 million coming directly off their taxes. we certainly need to invest in the pell grant program rather than to cut it back further. i see those young people that texas state and the alamo colleges and the trinity all with great potential to contribute to this country and

giving the educational opportunities that they want and need but a budget that says no new revenues that the people of the top will just not survive if they have to have the tax rate they did during the very prosperous years of president clinton in this country as an unbalanced budget that does not reflect the true needs of the country. estimate is there among the sixth time an opposition. as might your recognized for 20 minutes in opposition. i that is to hundred $50 billion of the tax increases and only $50 billion in actual spending reductions. with the increases in the 1 dollar spending cuts is not what i would call a balanced approach and it's actually worse than that because of the same time the amendment proposes a new round of so-called strategic

investment spending on more folies light solyndra that wipes out the reductions of this amendment is what we come to expect, higher taxes and more spending. that's not my idea of a balanced approach. i've explained to the minority white republicans are weary, the result of so-called balanced approach is like this in the past has gotten us where we are now. in the last ten years. we've had a 30% increase in revenue and 35% inflation population, so inflation of revenue have been keeping up pretty much with inflation and population despite the recession despite the tax cuts of last year. the problem is our spending has gone up 76% in the same period for we are taking five steps backwards proposed in this amendment. i've heard it said that we look forward to a day we could have a balanced approach to a budget

again. ronald reagan agreed to cut spending by $3 for every dollar of tax increases. the tax increase took effect, the spending cuts never did. boesh i made the same mistake with the same result he of a huge tax increase in the company by huge spending increases. bush ii got a huge cut accompanied by even bigger spending increases and spending to boot. i also hope the minority will understand we are weary when we year the democrats want to eliminate duplicative programs. that's a very good thing that we just had a debate where the democrats vigorously opposed cutting back the social services block grant that $1.7 billion a year to support 29 categories of overlapping government programs.

god knows how many overlaps a factual programs the largest spending category is day care. there are 69 federally supported child care programs already been funded yet we are to believe the democrats are serious about reducing duplicative programs when we've just had an hour debate resisting cutting duplicative programs. the reason the republicans oppose the tax increases that the democrats have put forward is not out of some rigid ideological aversion to taxes it's that the damage the economy in times like these and in this respect we agree with the president. obama when he sang that august of 2009 the last thing you want to do is raise taxes in the middle of the recession because that would take more demand out of the economy and put businesses in the whole. he was right then and he has been wrong ever since. when we see this kheyrabad of taxes on corporations especially the dreaded oil companies, and i

just have to make this point in the hope that is an example, corporations do not pay taxes. corporations do not pay taxes. corporate taxes can only be paid in one of three ways. they are paid by us as consumers through higher prices, they are paid by us as employees through lower wages or they are paid by us as investors through earlier earnings. those are the only three possible ways that any business tax can be paid. consumers, employees, investors. by the way the reason why companies are moving overseas is no mystery. we have the highest corporate tax in the industrialized world you combine it with state taxes and it's an effective tax rate to 49.6% that compares rather poorly with socialist france and his 34.4% in taxes.

china where the rate is 25% or russia which levies a mere 24%. you can't complain but corporations fleeing the shores and then propose increasing the corporate tax to replace the if you eliminate the ability of the u.s. companies from different taxes on the foreign operations you are not going to bring those jobs back to america quite the contrary we tried that in the 1980's on the u.s. shipping companies, the companies were transferred to foreign ownership to avoid what amounts to double taxation and we lost the companies and the management jobs and taxes that had been headquartered here. revenues are important but there's a healthy way and unhealthy way of generating them to read the whole family is to reduce the regulatory burdens that are crushing the economy and produce the growth. the on health the latest to expect more taxes out of an economy that is already buckling

under the weight. i think that's the difference between us is not so much in taking these actions as what we are going to do with the proceeds. there are a lot of potential areas of agreement we've talked about the warren buffett rule lot on this committee. the fact is the top 1% of taxpayers earn 17% of all income. they pay 30% of income taxes. so if you are really serious about having the rich pay their fair share, you and you're giving to reduce the tax rate by half. here's where we agree. we agree there are a variety of the polls dhaka to be eliminated with the few that are paying less than their fair share. proposed in the house budget that democrats on this committee are vigorously objecting to was to use those proceeds to lower the rates on those that are

currently paying more than their fair share. getting rid of direct subsidies to agriculture interest that's a start. getting the direct subsidies for all businesses. let every enterprise, regardless of its nature compete on its own merit by pleasing its customers. at the agriculture committee voted to preserve the agricultural subsidies i agree with the criticism of them that's the does a majority of house republicans faugh. there's no reason the federal government should be flooded and insurance businesses and it is correct on this, the market rates will flood insurance is the exact measure of the inherent flood risk of the partial land we shouldn't be distorted or correcting that data with subsidies, consumers

have a right to know the true cost of the risks and acquiring a given piece of property. and we can go on. there's other areas of agreement but the bottom line is this, the democrats want the proceeds from these actions to be to the government to spend. republicans want them returned to those that have earned that money so that they can spend and save and invest as they deemed wise the american people will need to resolve. i would yield four minutes to my friend from texas mr. floras. >> thank you. here we are done. we consider a balanced approach. all i can say is not. every time i've spoken we have considered revenue, we put revenue on the table with our budget with tax reform. we want to get rid of the locals

will get the tax reform plan, look at those things that we've put on the table to grow the revenues that targeted at certain groups to further increase the load on their back and reduce economic opportunity for the entire economy. the next statement that has been made is to try to balance the budget on the back of the middle class of the poor. nothing could be further from the truth to take the democratic economy off the backs of the middle class and the poor that have been shoved their because of the policy decisions. they continue to enslave people to being hooked on government handouts better paid by a hard-working taxpayers. the balanced approach we run is more revenues from tax reform and economic growth. president obama was touting the

buffet rule, the scandal, and that just proves to the american people you can't take the increased tax dollars in the federal government and count on the unaccountable bureaucrats to act responsibly with their tax dollars. that's the wrong thing to tell the american people. here is what mr. buffett said this weekend about the buffet rule. it doesn't cure all it doesn't cure all revenue problems even remotely. he went on to say fixing the federal debt was dependent on reining in federal expenses then he goes on and says my original article i said we've got major problems on the expenditure side it would be nice to see gdp galloping at four to 5%. those are the things he said. that's what we proposed in our budget which is a truly balanced approach. again, we hear the same attacks on the corporate taxes, go ahead

and tax the companies then you can get less gasoline at a higher cost tax corporations and run more of them overseas, talk about spending money on education on an agreement to spend more on education and hiring but that is a state and local functions if you want to give states and local governments more money to spend, grow the economy so that they have more revenue coming in their respective budgets. again devotees dollars don't have to go through d.c.. leaves dennett home where the people can spend them better. let's talk about examples of trying to tax a smaller group. in 2007 california had population after the 6 million that paid over half the total tax in that state. those millionaires are moving the taxes so california keeps digging itself into a larger and larger hole to raise the rates

higher and higher in getting us out of it. if you want to have less economy and less economic growth opportunities for the middle class and the lower class in the country for all classes in the country keep raising taxes. thank you and i yield back. >> to get personal the gentleman from california will retain the balance of his time. [laughter] my friend from one of the carolinas i can't keep them straight mr. mulroney performance. >> i thank the gentleman from oklahoma for his time. [laughter] >> mr. chairman they see in this business in order to get our message across we have to keep saying it again and again and again until we are so sick of hearing of the we don't want to talk that it anymore and i know that my colleagues across the lake are sick of me asking this question as much as i am that i have to ask which is what is my job where is the president on this?

he's the leader of the nation and your party where is he on the plan to replace the sequester? i raise it now because as you look over the amendment and i don't mean to amend diminished the other amendments this is comprehensive of the other two were freed or targeted this looks to be the comprehensive amendment offered by our colleagues across the way to replace the sequestered so it seems like the appropriate place to take it up and i think that two weeks ago when the comptroller of the omb that is typical for think if we have to look at the success from our perspective as conservatives at least people are saying the right things now the president has made clear the congress can and should act to avoid the sequester the administration believes taking action to avoid the sequester must be a primary focus of congress. it's their firm belief the sequester isn't an appropriate mechanism. we asked at the end.

we heard again and again the budget all i know is this is our one chance maybe i should have done a hearing to bring the budget in and make an amendment be could have had the discussion again. it can't be this. this can't be what the president is offering the current amendment. it looks to be to pages in large type which is great, don't get me wrong i like short amendments and we would be better off if they were not 250 pages at a time that this almost lacks specifics of the rate of making inappropriate take up. it says we talk a lot about higher taxes, we'll companies and taxes on international corporations and the buffet rule by the way proposed by the president but not in his budget the proposal that should be considered include does that mean they have to be considered,

does that mean something else can be considered? it's a list of ideas and generalities but it's far from what we need which is something specific that we can discuss and would probably be impossible to score this. the balance seems to say the gentleman made an excellent point which is the ratio here is 1 dollar of spending reductions for every $5 of tax increases and i guess the definitions would be balanced. i want to make it clear it is a far cry for the president to suggest it when he says he's offering $10 of spending reductions for every dollar increase and we never saw that, there was in a speech which the cbo famously said they couldn't score but he was saying the right things and at least that approached balance i think would have been a difficult conversation to have if there was a specific proposal across the way the was $10 in spending reductions for every 1 dollar of tax increase would be an interesting discussion.

they will grow jobs by among other things making strategic investments in education, science, critical infrastructure, it does. the amendment in all fairness to my good friend lacks the specifics that we need. we need real ideas. we do. we need to have specific discussions on how to fix the problem because i think that we agree that the problem is real, but i don't think that this amendment actually does for that reason and i hope that we reject it later on this evening and i yield back the balance of my time to read this but i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from north texas. >> we refer to texas as bob hall oklahoma -- baja oklahoma. let me make a couple comments on it. one is i do have a difficult time going to anyone right now saying we need to raise taxes

because the government is so efficient and we have worked on all of our duplications and all of our efficiencies we can't find more efficiencies so we have to raise taxes. i find that difficult to say to anyone with a straight face. the primary focus we need to take on in the nation is working on some of the things mentioned this amendment, duplication in government programs come in efficiencies, the waste, fraud and abuse we know is there but we shouldn't make as a central focus of saying how should we make us as efficient as we possibly can. with the statements daughter in here by eliminating waste and duplicate programs i do look forward to wide bipartisan support for the amendments and the passage of the appropriation bills coming in the days to come because the appropriation bills are working on addressing specifically duplication in government. we will deal with duplication in government, so i look forward to wide bipartisan support because those are issues that we need to

take on in very specific ways. but in many ways this amendment is something it is vague and general but when your try and replace it with a reconciliation process very specific and detailed it's like getting many people in your gps and it says to you if you want to get to your next designation go that way rather than specific turn by turn here's how we get it done the reconciliation process is a difficult process to work through that we look forward to the senate taking a big budget actually going through the reconciliation process with us so we can work through the difficult process name and what are we going to do to get out of this rather than go that way and we will figure it out as we go. i yield the outbalance to the chairman. >> i thought of texas as oklahoma. married to an oklahoma. you can you bring up the chart i highlighted. a balanced approach, we are in a

spending driven crisis. the red line shows you the projection of where spending is going in this country. of the green line shows you revenue. going past 60 years they've been fairly close to each other. look going forward. by the time my children are my age instead of taking 20 cents out of every dollar made in america 20% of gdp, the federal government will be taking 40 cents out of every dollar made in america to pay for this government at that time. by the time my hopefully grand kids are my age we will be taking 80 cents out of every dollar made in america to pay for this federal government at that time it's a spending driven crisis that's coming if you drive the balance or whatever

euphemism you want to use to chase that higher read spending line with revenues he will shut the economy down that much faster. spending is a problem. let's focus on the problem. having been here awhile, what i of learned is if you keep raising taxes all the end up doing is spending the money. the president's tax increases, they don't even pay for a fifth of his proposed deficit spending i rest my case. islamic very briefly beginning with the chart, i think for but the and this committee knows that the primary driver behind that the aging baby boomers and rising health care cost to dealing with that you, mr. chairman presented a chart showing that there is the approach you taken your budget

and there is the approach the president put forth to achieve the same trajectory we do in a very differently. we do not, the democratic plan does not transfer the cost of the risks on to seniors. let's talk about a balanced approach. we do support a range of cuts in fact one thing the congress has already done to the budget control act is to enact a trillion dollars of cuts. 100% cuts. we did that last august in order to meet those spending levels we are going to have to achieve greater efficiencies that's why the appropriators are working hard to do that. there is a violation in terms of the same level which will come up in a different point in time but the reality is the one thing we have all agreed on is the 100% spending cuts so we are asking our republican colleagues where is the balance in that, and what this amendment says is we need to take a balanced

approach like the bipartisan commission, sam sam bowles, rheedlen domenici. if you want to look at the cuts and revenue, let's go for it. we can agree right now let's leave that path forward. we haven't heard from any of our republican colleagues willing to put 1 penny in revenue. let's get facts on the table. the last time we had a balanced budget was at the end of the clinton administration. the was the period of time we saw the vast expansion in the economy, 20 million jobs created, and by the way in 1990 to become president increased the top marginal tax rate to 39%. it did not slow down the economy. things kept moving on to read we have a balanced budget. what happens? 2001 george bush, we now have back-to-back tax cuts. we were told that according to this trickle-down economics tv that you provide tax breaks that

helped the folks at the very top of those benefits are going to trickle down and lift up the middle class eight years later net loss in private sector jobs. we've been there. we've done that. it's not an experiment anymore. it was reality. there is the same fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on you. here we are saying you don't want to take a balanced approach when the last time we have a balanced approach was the last time that we actually balanced our budget. so we think it's important share in the responsibility of reducing the deficit the simple question but to accept 1 dollar revenue and 1 dollar in cuts, not a single one would take up that proposal. we hear a lot about tax reform on the republican side. we hear a lot about closing tax

loopholes but what we don't care about is doing what every bi-partisan mission has recommended to reduce the deficit if you don't use some of the revenue to reduce the deficit you will back every of the part of the budget which is what the republican budget does. you in the the medicare guaranteed and wac $800 billion out of medicaid, you do the kind of things we saw today with respect to cuts in the food and nutrition programs and shortchange the future investments in education, science infrastructure. that's why every credible bipartisan group has said you needed a balanced approach. that's why we want to enter the discussion with our colleagues. let's do with the american people expect us to do, make the hard decisions, make the tough compromises the way we've laid out proposals. we've made a trillion dollars in cuts but we are waiting to hear about 1 penny, just 1 penny for

deficit reduction from closing the tax loophole. the reality is a lot of these provisions of the tax code reward companies that shift jobs overseas. why do we have to wait? let's and then right now. oil and gas companies told us, the ceos told us they don't need those for having the incentive to drill. let's take that now towards deficit reduction. so, again, everyone can talk about how we haven't laid out every dollar but we've been on record supporting cuts. we've not heard one republican hear talk about 1 penny from the revenue side by closing tax loopholes. we look forward to the day we can get a balanced approach. thank you, mr. chairman. .. from the chamber of commerce and one from the military coalition in the record dealing with this. without objection, it's in the record. that question i will provide to

mr. van hollen. all of those in favor, aye. those opposed camano. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. roll call vote is requested. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call]