they took a district that had only one a school four years ago to five a schools today, and nine d or f schools back then to zero now. [applause] or the courage of judith foster, an elementary school principal in las cruces to sign herself and her teachers up for our intensive school turnaround program. her school was a d school. she wouldn't settle for that, and it's paid off. today, loma heights elementary has a b with more kids on grade level in reading and math. judith is here, alongside teachers stephanie cabrera and jeremy sanchez. congratulations. [applause] ..

in -- one year later over 50% of the participating increased at least one little the grid letter grade. it is making a difference in the district and two of his principles are here to test to

that. stacey from milwaukee valley intermediate school and derek from milwaukee valley middle school, both of whom had courage to take part and schools have seen great growth in their kids and in their grades. congratulations. [applause] >> thank you for your willingness to help our kids. this year we should fund and implement a similar mentor ship program but for teachers. exemplary teachers struggling with it and in doing so we can make big gains. classroom by classroom. and school by school. and if education is the most powerful tool in the life of a child we should honor and reward

our best teachers and to intervene quickly to help those who need it. but we must shoes courage over comfort. the status quo is comfortable. each teacher paid the same. every evaluation identical with the misguided believe all teachers should be labeled as competency. we know better. those are comfortable notions but they do not center on the one question we should be asking of all others when it comes to education. are our children learning? that is the question. if that is the central question then there is no doubt we would embrace reform. yes? we are evaluating teachers in a meaningful way more than ever before.

i understand change can be difficult and it can be challenging. i get it. but we continue to listen to ways in which we can improve and make the process better. i will meet anyone half way so long as our children learning is the only goal in front of us. we also continue to look for ways to better support our teachers because we know how all important their work is. for example teachers tell me two thing is most often that starting teachers are paid enough and that they shouldn't have to spend their own money from their own pockets on school supplies in the classroom. i couldn't agree more. that is why i am proposing we raise starting teachers salaries by an additional $2,000 per year to help us recruit and retain

more good teachers. [applause] >> to help teachers who have to pay ever classroom materials out of pocket we should provide every new mexico teacher with a pre loaded $100 debit card for the purchase of classroom supplies so they don't take it out of their own pockets. [applause] >> also recognize how difficult it can be in a state as large general as ours to regroup certain types of teachers bilingual, special lead, math science. let's offer two year stipends to these types of teachers if they are willing to teach in schools or districts where recruitment or retention has been a challenge. i firmly believe we should allow

adjunct teachers into our high school to teach certain difficult subjects. scientists from las alamos teaching one or two chemistry classes, well-trained researchers teaching geometry or calculus, if our goal is to provide our kids with the best instruction possible these are opportunities we cannot pass up. [applause] >> let me say this. if education is the key to a brighter future for our children than we must have the courage to demand that our kids are in their seats and learning. truancy is a i can search in our school. today's habitual the kids are in deep to -- tomorrow's dropout

students. it is our collective problem and we know who's the average kids are. teachers say they can spot them a mile away detached, behavior issues, lack of interest in school and their peers so i propose district with high truancy problems come with local plans to solve it. which middle schools could really benefit from having social workers on campus to interact with at risk kids. in the high schools that are fed by these middle schools higher dropout prevention coaches whose sole purpose is to see these kids receive a diploma. despite our best interests some young people will not get the message until we have the courage to be tougher.

the that end we should pass legislation that would not allow habitually truant students to obtain or keep their driver's license. [applause] >> ask yourself this. how did many troubled students end up that way? on interested in schools, dropping out, perhaps engaging in criminal activity, achieving far lower than their potential. as a prosecutor for 25 years as someone who listened to the stories of teachers who tried to reach these kids, chances are it is because they can't read it very well. they fell behind early, couldn't read a children's book.

words got bigger. subject got harder. passed along. asked to read out loud in class, no way. too embarrassing. homework? can't read it. stop trying. tired of failing. i am struggling because i will never understand this which becomes i am not smart. i and done trying. when children cannot read and yet they are passed along anyway we do them no favors. we discourage them. we frustrate them. we heard their chances for success in life. we hampers their ability to get a good job. that does not build self-esteem in a child's. we have condoned this for too

long, taken the easy way out. made a comfortable decision. courage, it takes courage to do the right thing. now is the time. this is the moment when he beat stop becoming compulsive in this practice. on my watch we more than doubled to pre k funding. i am proposing more this way again. we made a-3 plus a permanent program allowing struggling readers to take advantage of summer to ring. i know it starts early. i know that. i know it has to start early in

our efforts to start social promotion i jam packed. with intervention starting at kindergarten to get children help so that retaining them is not necessary. let's acknowledge the devastating ripple effect of social be promoting our youngest children. it impacts their ability to learn and succeed. it makes it harder for teachers in later grades to bring them up to speed and it makes it harder for businesses to find a qualified work force that the need. let's choose progress, not politics, on this issue. [applause]

>> it is true we are making gains, hispanic kids and low-income students are among the leaders of the nation when it comes to advanced placement success and lowest performing students are making progress quote we haven't seen before. we are seeing glimpses of what happened with reform. we have a lot of work left to do. let's put our students' first and ultimately we can create thriving families and a stronger new mexico work force. isn't that what we want? isn't-what they in demand. there are other questions businesses ask also when deciding where to locate and whether to expand, whether the state finances are in water, whether state tax policies are fair, whether our education system is preparing an adequate

work force. things like will we get the fair shake? is the playing field level? i am proud what we have done to increase confidence in state government. after all, four years ago that confidence was shaken to its core. corrupt contractors were not allowed to do business with the states any longer. but judges take away the corrupt officials, and $29 million in taxpayer money that was squandered in the rich edson era place to place scandal. [applause] >> there is more to do. those convicted of public

corruption should be immediately removed from office, not be allowed to stay on the job and collect a paycheck and as we have done with appointees in my administration legislators should not be able to serve in government one day, then lobby that very same government the next day. [applause] >> let's adopt a few other common sense reforms. if a worker gets injured on the job while drunk or high he or she should not be allowed to receive workers' compensation benefits. [applause] a >> partisan elections should have no place in the selection of our judges.

these are basic reforms and by enacting them we can show the outside world that government and new mexico just makes sense. [applause] >> it is critical that our communities are safe. for kids to have a bright future it must be safe and they must be secure. in past years we strengthen sex offender registration and closed the loophole that allowed out of state sex offenders to come here undetected. the expansion of katie's law has led to an incredible eat% increase in dna matches connecting people who are committing a broader range of felonies to previously unsolved crime.

135 burglaries, at 21 sex offenses and ten homicides. goes live the being staged and more justice for victims every day. [applause] >> in addition alcohol-related fatalities on our roadways in 2013 were at an all-time low. that is encouraging. after all come as our campaign emphasizeds it is the responsibility of each of us in our own way and in a variety of ways to stop drunken-driving in our state. but still, we see too many tragedies too many lives lost at the hands of drunk drivers. this session we need to crack down on repeat offenders, the

ones who truly don't get it. and to increase penalties for those who recklessly toss the keys to someone whose license has been suspended due to indeed wi conviction. there are other measures we can adopt to keep mexicans a listing of fenders to kill under the influence of alcohol should be required to serve 85% of their prison sentence no matter what. [applause] >> and let's do what the people we represent have demanded. it is time to repeals the dangerous law that gives drivers licenses to illegal immigrants to come here from around the world. [applause]

>> i have dedicated my life to fighting for kids and to hold those who heard the accountable. i have seen the devastating effects of child abuse firsthand. over the next four years we must redouble our efforts to stop child abuse in new mexico. we can start with common sense initiatives, create seven nude child advocacy centers, police officers and caseworkers who investigated the same abuse incidents worked in the same building, along side safe house interviewers and other social-service groups because preventing child abuse is a team effort come as is investigating it. we should also hire more family

support workers who focus specifically on helping those families who have had several referrals for abuse or neglect issues. routine checks on the family regular guidance and counseling, we will have the technology in place for police officers access to the history of a family when they are dispatched to child abuse institute. that would be in their hands and to better recruit and better recruit and retain case workers i propose establishing the new loan repayment program where the state pays a portion of our case workers student loans in exchange for this service. [applause] >> the job of a case worker is

incredibly difficult. it is why we have such high turnover. we have already raised the average case worker's pay by 10% and this initiative is the next step. we should also close the many loopholes and correct the deficiencies in our current child abuse law. for example caseworkers are called to a home. they should be able to prescribe counseling or therapy services and mandate that the parent or other caretakers take part. [applause] additionally every single person in our state, every single person in our state should be required to protect our children and reports filed abuse if they are known or

suspected to be occurring. [applause] >> that has always been the law of the land which said the recent court appeals decision ignored decades of precedent. let's set that matter straight. let's get it free in doubt that we protect every single child in new mexico. [applause] >> in addition to making sure children are safe we must ensure they are well cared for and provide a safety net so the child isn't getting basics like a good breakfast every morning. that is why i support expanding and breakfast after the bell program beyond the elementary school to midland high school students as well. we will expand the summer food program because they deserve to look forward to the summer break, not read it out of fear

that they will be hungry. our greatest calling is to improve life for our children. because they will take our place one day and i wanted to be better than we were. better educated, better jobs, safer homes stronger communities, the spirit of a child is an amazing scene. i interacted with children under the worst of circumstances throughout my career as a prosecutor. it was hard. my goal was to get justice for them and then ask god to give them the resilience and the ability to overcome the scars, of the paint and the hurt.

those kids were determined not to let the diversity of views stand in the way of being the person i know i was created to be.youth stand in the way of being the person i know i was created to be. that is why it is important to me that we never make decisions that stifle the child's hope and dampen a child's spirit, or put a ceiling on their potential. we grow our economy to empower them so that when we tell them they can grow up to be anything they want, they can be confident in that promise. we turn around struggling schools to empower the kids empower them.

we evaluate and help our teachers, encourage them, ensure they can read to empower them. allow me to introduce two young people. who are overcoming their very own adversity. i have gotten to know them well over the last year ever since they became the victims of a horrible act of gun violence at their middle school. the last time we were gathered in this chamber together they were both in the hospital receiving treatment for their injuries. youth thankfully, seeing their beautiful smiles on the news a few times since, this is kendall

sanders and nathaniel divides. we are so grateful to have them here and give them a warm welcome. [applause] [applause] >> kindle needed two surgery's including one to replace a punctured artery. nathaniel is blind in his left

eye. both still have lead pellets in their bodies. there's was an unthinkable experience and the road to recovery will be long. kendall has said she wonders if she will ever be loved because of the scars she has. kendall, yes. you are and will always be lumped . [applause] you will always be successful. nathaniel, you too. when always at your school we were taking pictures, a group

picture and several kids trying to get into the picture so pushing and shoving and almost tripped and fell. and with such a quiet confidence and with your injury you quietly said don't worry i will catch you. [applause] >> we are pulling for both of you ended is my hope our actions in this legislative session will say firmly we are pulling for every new mexico child to be as successful as their hard's desire, to go as they far as they want to go, to be whoever in life they want to be, no matter how they grow up no matter their background, no matter the adversity that they

face. to do good and to be better than we were. ladies and gentlemen, now is the time to choose progress over politics. now is the time to be courageous and bold not comfortable and apathetic. now all is the time to commit to change and reform that will better the lives of our children because they deserve our very best and we should resolve to give it to them. [applause]

>> our best days are ahead of us god bless you all, god bless our great state and let's move forward for our children. thank you and god bless you new mexico. [applause] >> today president obama's nominee to be the next attorney general, loretta lynch, testified that her senate confirmation hearing. you can watch live coverage of the judiciary committee beginning at 10:00 eastern time on c-span3 and c-span.org. this sunday on q&a narrow scientist dr. frances jansen on the recent discoveries about the teenage dream. >> they don't have their frontal lobes to reason. cause and affect of consequences of actions are not very clear

because there frontal lobes are not at the ready. they are not as readily accessible. they have frontal lobes but the connections can't be made as quickly for a split-second decisionsmaking and don't forget a lot of hormones are changing a lot in the body of young men and women and the brain hasn't seen these yet in life until you hit teenage years. so the brain has learned how to respond to these new hormones that are running around and walking none to receptors, synapses of different types so they are trying -- trial and error. this contributes to this roller-coaster kind of experience that we watch as parents. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a. >> on monday the congressional budget office released updated budget projections. according to the report, 2015 will have the lowest budget deficit of the obama presidency

but critics rising deficits beginning in 2018 as social security medicare and interest payments increase. cbo director douglas elmendorf held a news briefing to discuss this report. this is about an hour. >> hello. i am douglas elmendorf, director of the budget office. cbo just released its outlook for the budget and the economy over the next ten years. i will summarize the report briefly as my colleagues and i will be happy to take your questions. the federal budget deficit which has blown sharply during the last few years is projected to hold steady relative to the sides of the economy through

2018. beyond that point, the gap between spending and revenue is expected to grow. further increasing federal debt relative to the size of the economy which is historically high. those are based on the assumption current laws governing taxes and spending will generally remain the same and they are built on our economic forecast. according to that forecast the economy will expand at a solid pace in 2015 and the next few years to the point that the gap between the nation's output and its potential are at maximum sustainable output will be essentially eliminated by 2017. as a result the unemployment rate will fall little further and more people will be encouraged to enter or stay in the labour force. beyond 2017 inflation-adjusted gross domestic product for real gdp will grow at a rate that is notably less than the average growth in the 1980s and 1990s. let me address the budget

outlook first and then turn to the economic outlook. we estimate the deficit for fiscal year 2015 will amount to $468 billion slightly less than the deficit to 2014. at 2.6% gdp this year's deficit is projected to be the smallest relative to the nation's output since 2007 but close to the 2.7% the deficits have averaged over the last 50 years. all the deficit in our baseline projections remain roughly stable as a percentage of gdp through 2018 a rise after that. deficit in 2025 is projected to be $1.1 trillion or 4.0% of gdp. and cumulative deficit over 2016-20205 period are projected to total $7.6 trillion. we expect federal debt held by the public will amount to 74% gdp at the end of this fiscal

year, more than twice what it was at the end of 2007 and higher than any year since 1950. by 2025 in our baseline projections federal debt rises to nearly 79% gdp. when cbo offered long-term budget projections in the summer we projected under current law, that would exceed 107% gdp, 25 years from now and continue in an upward trajectory thereafter. that trend could not be sustained. such large and growing federal debt would have serious negative consequences including increasing federal spending for interest payments, restraining economic growth in the long term giving policymakers less flexibility to respond to unexpected economic events, eventually a signing of the risk of a fiscal crisis. why will deficits and debts increase relative to gdp under

current law? in our projections outlays rise from 20% of gdp this year which is what federal spending has averaged over the past 50 years to a little more than 22% in 2025. four key factors underlie that increase, retirement of the baby boom generation, expansion of federal subsidies for health insurance, increasing health care costs for beneficiaries and rising interest rates on federal debts. consequently under current law spending would grow faster for social security, major health care programs including medicare, medicaid and subsidies offered through insurance exchanges and net interest costs. in sharp contrast mandatory spending other than that for social security and health care as well as defense and nondefense discretionary spending would shrink from much of to the size of the economy.

by 2019 outplayeds in those three latter categories taken together would fall below the percentage of gdp they were between 1998 and 2001, when such spending was the lowest since 1940, the earlier year with which comparable data was imported. revenues are projected to rise significantly by 2016, buoyed by exploration of several provisions their reduced tax liability and by the ongoing economic expansion. in our projection based on current law revenues equal 18.5% gdp in 2016 and remain between 18, and 18.5% throughout the coming decades. revenues at that level were representing a greater share of the economy than their 50 year average of 17.5% gdp. it would still be less by growing amounts over the course of the decade and outlay. revenue from individual income

taxes are expected to rise relative to gdp mostly because people's income will move into higher tax brackets as incomes gain outpaced inflation and to which those brackets are indexed. those increases are expected to be offset by reductions relative to gdp in revenues from the corporate income tax and other sources. turning from the budget to the economy we anticipate economic activity will expand at a solid pace in 2015 and the next few years reducing the amount of underuse resources in the economy. in our estimation increases in consumer spending, business investment and residential investment will drive economic expansion this year and over the next few years. growth in those categories will derive mainly from increaseds in our league compensation, for rising wealth, recent decline in crude-oil prices and from a step

up in the rate of household formation. as measured by the change in the fourth quarter of the previous year will gdp will grow by 3% in 2015-16 and by 2.5% in 2017. the difference between gdp and our estimate of potential gdp which is a measure of slack for the economy was 2% of potential gdp at the end of 2014. during the next few years we expect, actual gdp will rise more rapidly, gradually eliminating that slack. the labor market in particular we anticipate slack will dissipate by the end of 2017. by our projections increased hiring will reduce the unemployment rate from 5.7% in the fourth quarter of last year to 5.3% in the fourth quarter of 2017 which is close to the expected natural rate of unemployment, the rate arising from all sources except fluctuations in the overall

demand for goods and services. increase hiring will encourage more people to enter or stay in the labour force boosting labor force participation rate which is the percentage of people who are working or actively looking for work. projections be on the next few years are not based on estimates with cyclical developments in the economy. the agency does not attempt to predict economic fluctuations that are in the future. instead those projections are based on underlying factors that affect the economy's productive capacity. for 2020 through 2025 we project real gdp will grow by 2.2% pre year. a rate that matches the agency estimate of potential growth of the economy in those years. potential output is expected to grow more slowly than it did in the 1980s and 90s primarily because labour force is anticipated to expand more slowly youth and it did then. growth in the potential labor

force will be held down by the ongoing retirement for baby boomers by relatively stable labor force participation rate among working age women after sharp increases from the 1960s to the mid 1990s and federal tax and spending policies set in current law. the elimination in the economy will remove the downward pressure on the rate of inflation and on interest rates that existed in the past several years. irs estimates the rate of inflation measured by the price index for personal consumption expenditures will move gradually to the federal reserve's goal of 2% hitting that market the end of 2017 and beyond. interest rates on treasury securities which have been exceptionally low since the reception will rise considerably the next few years. they are lower than they were in previous decades. between 2020 and 2025 projected interest rates on pre month treasury bills and ten year treasury notes are 3.4% and 4.6%

respectively. thank you. we take your questions. start identifying yourself and the publication you work for. >> to get done your projections. >> our baseline economic projection and baseline budget projections are consistent with each other in that the budget projections for what we think will happen to the federal budget given the economic outcomes we predict an economic outcomes we predict oslo's we expect would happen given the baseline budget projections so the baseline projections are always dynamic in this sense of that word, the budget and economic effects are calculated projected together.

>> if i may. the term of the topics. >> people in congress focus on cost estimates, not baseline projections. for cost estimates there has been a longstanding custom that cost estimates by cbo or revenue estimates by staff and taxation have not included effects of the proposals on overall macroeconomic conditions and the feedback from macro economic changes to the federal budget. however, we and j.c. tee have produced estimates of the economic effects of large proposals periodically over it time and reported close to the congress. nearly every year we do an analysis of the president's budget that starts with an estimate of the effects on specific spending and revenue provisions without allowing

macroeconomic conditions to change but then we go back into economic analysis of the president's budget including of feedback to the budget itself and we have done that essentially every year for a dozen years. we also do that dynamic analysis with federal debt in the long-term budget out of, we did it for comprehensive immigration legislation in the senate a few years ago. and our colleagues for a number of pieces of tax legislation including the tax reform proposal last year. so we and chase ct are accustomed to doing analyses of the economic effects of major pieces of legislation. what is different in the role the house has adopted is the budgetary feedback of those economic changes would be included in the official cost estimates rather than being presented a supplementary

information which was later said and done in the past. ensure we are prepared to do what the house rule asks us to do. >> two it things. the verbage about interest costs -- how much is that slow? is basically -- for lack of a better term still worried about losing their job, get a new job and so on. >> the first question comes as you know interest rates on treasury debt halved been extraordinarily low the last several years and as a consequence of that, federal

debt is historically high relative to the size of the economy interest payments by the government have been quite low so interest payments this year, 2015, we project will be $227 billion and that is 1.3% gdp. well below what interest payments were 25 years ago. over the coming decade we expect interest rates will move up and as treasury needs to finance new deficits and rolls over the existing debt the interest rate that it pays on average on the outstanding debt will rise and we have the debt as high as it is with the rise in interest rates and first payments rise considerably so nominal interest payments that this year will be $227 billion, we think will be $827 billion in 2025. that will be 3% of gdp rather

the 1.3% that they will be this year. has for wage growth, compensation growth since the recession has been a good deal lower than it was before the recession and although some measures of compensation growth pick up a little bit they still remain below what we saw before the recession and we think that is a direct consequence of the slack in the labour market. when employers are trying to attract workers and for a lot of people looking for jobs employers don't have to offer this type pay as they would if the labor market retire. and will continue to time in over the next few years, that will put more pressure on employers to raise compensation and we think the compensation growth will pick up.

the share of national income for labor has fallen quite a bit over the last few decades and we think it will rebound but not to the level that it wants 15, 20, 35 years ago. structure >> structural change, there has been permanent structural changes? >> knowing how important those would be in the future is very hard. certain technological changes, globalization by forces people look to a lot. probably others were at work as well. and how important those factors will be in the future is hard to know. labor share of income tends to fall during the initial recovery from recessions no i think we have a good basis for where it

is now. we intend to project that it comes toward its average the previous few decades. >> two part question. number one. do you have a view whether the house rule is a good idea? number 2. will there be a greater level of uncertainty to a dynamic score. >> we don't have a position went to the house rule is a good idea or not. we think it is natural for members of congress to be interested in the macro economic consequences of major pieces of legislation and that is why cbo has for many years build models to estimate those consequences

and we have in the past few years devoted a great deal of effort to improving those models to getting feedback from outside experts and revisiting and writing a collection of papers that spell out how we do an analysis of economic changes of fiscal policy. at this point, a set of eight papers the go through key aspects of that modeling, one of which was a dozen years old and the the seven we have written the past four years. we interested the importance of that analysis and provide the best assessments we can. it is up to the congress to decide how it wants to use that information and if it wants information to come in a supplementary form, not official cost estimates as it has in the past we are happy to do that and if congress were to want the extra set of estimates in the

cost estimates, house rules require certain legislation that we have to do that. it is up to congress to decide how it wants to receive our analysis. as to uncertainty daymac grow economic effects of legislation are often quite uncertain. it is also true the macro economic effects can be quite uncertain. it is always important for readers of our work to understand there's a great deal of uncertainty surrounding numbers and we give point estimates because the budget process requires point estimates. things have to add up. allocations given to committees and are appropriated. we try to work in that world and understand and hope our readers understand there is uncertainty. in some cases the macro economic effects of legislation will be more uncertain than the effect

we estimate holding the conditions fixed but that won't always be the case. it depends on the legislation we are analyzing. the general manager that makes small changes in programs or the tax code, small changes of the sort that have been done before, analysts have a reasonable basis for making fairly accurate projections, but for major changes in policies or comprehensive reform of the tax code of our immigration policies, it is always a great deal of uncertainty that accompanies the estimate we provide and that provides a general feature people need to understand and we need to continue to convey as clearly as we can work for macro economic analyses we have provided ranges

of macroeconomic effects and to convey clearly the uncertainty for those estimates. >> changes in ceo's estimate of major health care programs and updating all of this. >> yes. let me talk about a few components we are discussing. for the coverage provisions of the affordable care act and to be clear the affordable care act changed a lot of spending programs in the tax code. we talk about them in a few large buckets, one being provisions that expanded health-insurance coverage like expansion of medicaid and subsidies to insurance exchanges and awaited provisions and a lot of provisions involving the medicare program and this tax

code provisions i focus on now are the ones involving the expansion of health insurance. for those provisions we have made a significant downward revision to the estimated cost over the next decade, downward revision of $100 billion, it in 7% less than we expected last year. and relative to our projections in march of 2010 when the affordable care act was enacted, the cost of those insurance coverage provisions between 2015, and 2019 which was the last five years of which we made estimates in 2010 for those five years we have now revise down the cost of insurance coverage provisions by 20%. that has been through a collection of provision multiple times a year over the last five years. a number of factors underlie

that revision. probably the most important one is this slowing in growth of health insurance premiums but there are others including supreme court decision of a few years ago and any other external factors improving their modeling. we also as you know revise down over the last several years our projections for medicaid and medicare spending, a good deal. further revision in medicaid spending and this set of projections and a number of factors have fed into that. there are apart from economic changes for medicare not significant changes in this projection relative to the last one, things that relate to the economic forecast. in terms of we consider technical revisions, provisions are not due to legislation or changes, but our focus on developments in the program and interpretation of them. we are not seeing significant

revision to medicare projections this time. but all told since 2010 because of these technical factors assessment of what is going on in health care programs we have marked down our projection of federal medicare spending, as that of federal medicaid spending and premiums in the insurance exchanges by 15% each for 2020. some of that is things that happened already, some is our projection of slower growth over the next few years. we have gone a little further in that direction this time in our projection of health insurance subsidies and cost of expansion of medicaid, and medicare. robert? >> you have figures on the decline and discretionary

spending and shared gdp. comfortable figures and trusted for inflation and population change using something like that. >> we don't have a continuous series of bills. there are spots in the text where we talk about certain components of discretionary spending relative to four all five years ago adjusting for inflation but i don't remember all those numbers of hand. there are soft references and i don't think there was anything like population growth. i am happy to at be to thumb through this. between 2010 to 2014, the

department of defense the climbed by 15% nominal terms or 21% in constant $2,010. excluding the funding for overseas contingency operations defense funding fell by 6% nominal terms, 6% in real terms over that period. in 2010-14 on the same page funding for non-defense discretionary programs declined by 4.5% nominal terms, or 11% in constant $2,010. >> the wall street journal. talk a little bit about what prompted the potential output for the u.s. economy. >> we revised down our estimate of potential output by 1% from

what we had in our economic forecast and the primary source of that revision was to reassess productivity growth and especially productivity growth in the nonfarm business sector. we previously thought the slow-growth of actual productivity over the past several years, emotionally dues to shortfall in growth relative to potential level of productivity and participated the actual productivity would rebound to its potential level over the coming years. that seemed like a reasonable expectation because productivity falls short of its potential level when the economy is weak.

and push workforces as hard when demand is stronger. is reasonable in our view to have a projection of potential productivity growth in the nonfarm business sector above the growth we are observing. as the economy has strengthened over the past few years one would expect actual growth to not be falling further away from our projection of potential but was given the potential growth we had. that didn't seem to us to be the best forecast in an economy that was strengthening so we lower our projection our potential factor for growth so it is still above actual growth. we think there will be a rebound in productivity over the next few years but not as large a rebound as we have been expecting before. >> this problem that we face in trying to understand how much of what happened to productivity over the past several years is

due to the business cycle and how much is due to underlying factors. it becomes harder as a length of time during this week economic conditions last longer. there are people who observe productivity growth seemed to slow a few years before the recession. that was a short period. we had a very deep recession and a slow rebound of output. ..

i have a technical question. on page 98 you talk about the erosion of corporate tax rate. over 2.5% of erosion in the corporate tax rate. [inaudible] pushing corporate tax revenue up. giving will be closer to the historical average? what is it about -- how is it different from the corporate, how does it offset? >> i think the way to think about our projection of corporate tax rate is to start with an economic projection of how much profits we think will be earned by corporations in this country. does, because the profits earned

in this country taxed much more than profits of u.s. corporations that are earned overseas, so we focused on presenting our results on the domestic profits of the company. then the question is what share of those profits will be paid in tax? one cannot tell by just look at the statutory corporate tax rates because the tax paid depends on the expense of the deductions and so on that companies will make and how that will affect the tax burden. what we're trying to explain is part of what is going on is that the effective tax it on domestic profits which is to say the total amount of money the treasury has collected expressed as a ratio to domestic profits, fell during the recession the last few years anyway the we can't entirely explain. part of the reason we can't explain it is that all we have now for the past two years are the total amounts of money, the details what's in the corporate tax returns will help unravel

the also but they are only available to some lack. for the last few years we've seen this tax rate defined as the tax collection divided by profits, has been low. we think there will be some recovery for the longer-term average because we are making an educated guess at what's happened in the last few years is partly because economic circumstances of the past few years. so there will be a rebound from that phenomenon. the same time there's a different thing going on which is that companies are trying to find ways to reduce the corporate tax that they pay. as we explain here and some of what you doing in false movie business income from the corporate sector to the non-corporate sector, out of see corporations into s. corporations, other things that are not taxable. we have written about that before. there's been on worth downward trend in business income tax at the corporate level. we think that will continue. the second factor we describe is

a set of efforts by companies to increase the amount of corporate income shifted out of the country. it is subject to much less u.s. attacks. diverse ways to do that. we talk about transfer pricing. corporate conversions are part of the roughly half of the erosion of the corporate tax base we talk about. that factor is at work and reducing corporate tax receipts over the coming decade progressively. but that is offset in part over the next few years by an increase in the rebound in the tax rate so there are other factors that we don't have a firm handle on because we don't have the detailed tax statement of the taxpayers. moreover we think corporate profits will decline as a share of income later in the decade because rising interest rates will increase their interest payments, faster compensation growth pushes up the labor share of income will push down the corporate share. that factor which affects the

nominators, we think those factors will push economic profits down relative to gdp and that will also push down corporate tax revenue expressed well to gdp. i will check with my experts to make sure i got that right. or write enough. okay. other questions? >> the updated revenue and spending outlook you have any idea when we'll be looking at the debt limit this year? >> we do write about that in the report. the debt ceiling was suspended as you know, through the middle of march of this year. and when that suspicion ends, the debt ceiling under the law as it now stands, the debt ceiling will be reset to equal the amount where the ceiling was before it was suspended, plus

all the data that has been issued since the debt ceiling was suspended. so when this happened in mid-march the debt ceiling will be set equal to the outstanding debt subject to limit. so treasury will immediately in mid-march be unable to increase its net borrowing. at that point we presumably will deploy this customary set of quote extraordinary measures to obtain funds without increasing debt. we think those measures will be effective through sept number or october of this year. -- through september or october. shortly after that then the treasury will have run down its cash balance and be unable to beat all of its obligations in a timely way unless some other action is taken. that projectioprojectio n of

september or october is of course uncertain, depends on inflows and outflows of money over the next eight or nine months. you know from previous rounds of this, projecting the treasury's cash flows on a month-to-month can week to week, day-to-day basis is a very uncertain business. so we will continue to keep the congress apprised but we're not likely to know more precisely when the treasury will run out of extraordinary measures or run out of cash and delete get quite close to those events occurring. >> could you go over the major factors causing the deficit to fall over the next couple of years, then start rising again in? debt the deficits?

>> the deficit. >> i'll be happy to talk about the pattern. so we think that the dollar amount of the federal deficits will be as i said $468 billion this year, $467 billion next fiscal year, and then will start to rise expressed as a share of gdp, the deficit will remain about 2.5% through 2018 and will then rise beyond that. rising from about 2.5% in 2018 to 3% in 2019 and then 4% by 2025. that pattern results from a combination of factors i talked about earlier. part of what happened is that tax revenues rise a good deal in 2016 relative to 2015 because of the expiration of some tax provisions in the improving economy. so tax revenues that we think will be 17 points 7% of gdp this year we project will be 18.4% of

gdp next year. so there's an increase in tax revenue market increase in relative decisive economy. but after 2016 tax rivers remain about the same relative to the size of economy for the rest of the decade. so we're tax revenues that move up quickly and 2016 but then are about flat expressed as a share of gdp. meanwhile, on the outlay side there are these crosscurrents. retirement of of the baby boomers is exerting this tremendous upward pressure on spending for social security and medicare and medicaid throughout the decade. there will be more than one-third more people receiving medicaid, sorry, medicare and social security benefits at the end of the decade that are receiving today. that goes on all the time and thatthe pushes of total spending by the federal government. but at the same time there are the other thing pushing spending up of course is rising interest

payments. we think interest rates will move up a fair bit over the next few years but the government interest costs responsible to that because the government doesn't roll over all of its debt in any one year. so the average interest rates on treasury debt response gradually to market interest rates. we actually report in table 1.3 on some page of the report, i don't have the page number, the average interest rate on debt held by the public which rises throughout the decade. so we have aging the baby boomers, rising health care costs per person, expansion of health care subsidies, rising interest payments, all those things are pushing spending up throughout the decade. what on the other hand, there are declines in spending relative to gdp for defense purposes and for all of the non-defense purposes both nondefense discretionary spending like highway infrastructure r&d support

education and training support, health research, and the veterans health care and many other things. and in a non-social security, non-health care benefit program like s.n.a.p. and ssi and so on. so the specific pattern from year to year results from this whole combination of factors. but again the underlying point is that we have a handful of very large federal programs that provide benefits for older americans, or provide health care benefits, or both. and with a rising number of older americans and the rising cost of health care, those programs get much more expensive. by 2025 one quarter of total projected spending will be for social security benefits. and so the of the biggest pieces are medicare, defense spending,

interest payments. just those four things along, social security, medicare interest payments on the debt and defense spending, those four items together represent two-thirds of federal total federal spending in 2025. so the growth of federal spending is not coming from a growth across the board in federal programs. it is really coming from growth in handful of very large programs. but the other parts of the budget as i said earlier and we shall in the report are getting smaller relative to the size of gdp, and that dance some of the effects -- dampens some of the growing spending. so the combination of these factors, but the trend is clearly for rising deficit for reasons that are very well understood and had been predicted by analysts literally for decades. >> david lauter with reuters. as far as could you clarify your

status as ceo, are you a contender for the job as chairman? >> my current status is to be the director of cbo. my term ended on january 3 but under the budget act of 1974 directors can continue to serve until after the terms have expired until new directors are appointed. i like the job a lot so i'm continuing to serve. i expect to do that unless and until a new director is appointed. whether a different director will be appointed and if so who that will be and when that will occur, i don't know. and i'm not going to be the first person to know or the first person to tell you. i think that decision rests with the budget committees and the leadership of the house and the senate, and i'm content to leave with them and they think they will speak to the matter when they want to speak to it.

>> can you talk about your estimate that by 2039 public debt will exceed 100% of gdp? you said that's the last time that happened was just after world war ii. that was a time of unparalleled economic growth. you want to talk about that concern? >> yes. this is a projection from our long-term outlook last summer when we look out 25 years, and in some sense it is even bit longer. we said last summer that we thought that under current laws that debt would exceed 100% of gdp within 25 years. we have not formally updated those longer-term projections, but the projection industry board of debt relative to gdp at the end of the decade is quite close to the projection we used last summer in building the longer-term projections. so we have not done anything less summit that would change our view that and let some

significant changes are made in spending or tax policy, or both that debt will exceed 100% of gdp within 25 years. and be on an upward trajectory beyond the point of time. i think, and the only time before in our history where are publicly held debt has been around 100% of gdp was right at the end of the second world war. what was different then was that the debt rent out very sharply during -- ran up -- during the second war but then started to come down relative to gdp. that was not particularly because, find a picture not particularly because large surpluses were run, but because as you mentioned gdp grew rapidly and the budget was close to being imbalance. but the reason for the run up in debt then was really this particular one time myth the cost of fighting the war.

a run up in debt we've seen over the past is very heavily because of the financial crisis and recession, the weak recovery and the policy responses of those events. so those are, one hopes, one-time event. but behind that is this ongoing and highly anticipated event of the retirement of the baby boom generation and thus the movement of a large number of americans to an age where the federal government provides significant benefits. and also underlined this is the rising cost of health care per person, which has been less over the past half a dozen years than had been for decades before that but nonetheless we think that this projection is a continued growth in health care costs per beneficiary. so with many more people eligible for social security and

medicare, and certain benefits and medicaid as time goes on and with the cost of health care benefits rising, we now face a structural, long-term structural challenge that is quite different from the situation faced begin at the end of the second world war. the fact that debt doesn't rise very much relative to gdp over the next decade does not mean that it doesn't that having dead at this high level doesn't have significant cost but it does. with the debt is high relative to the size of the economy there will be significant interest payments when interest rates rebound. there will be crowding out of capital investments as time goes on. there is reduced flexibility for policymakers to respond to future financial crises or recessions or international events. and there's a heightened risk of a fiscal crisis. so even if debt were stable at

70% of gdp it would be significant cost. moreover because these underlying forces we don't think the debt will be stable. another point worth emphasizing is the reason the debt on the rise a little bit relative to the size of the economy over the coming decade, despite the demographic changes and rising health care costs, is really because there is set in current law a very sharp reduction in spending for everything apart from social security and the major health care programs. compare that to historical experience. nondefense discretionary spending, the whole collection of program, congress appropriately future, is about the same percentage of gdp this year than it was 50 years ago. and this spending has fluctuated relative to the size of the economy over time but has shown no evidence trend over 50 years.

but under current law, given the caps on discretionary funding, it will fall to a lower percentage of gdp than we have seen. turns out those are not available that way before 50 years ago. defense spending is a little more complicated. defense spending has trended down relative to the size of the economy over the last 50 years, although not over the last 20 years. it felt a fair bit in the '80s and '90s the end of the '80s and 90s and the 2000s, but it is really stabilize this year in gdp over the last 20 years. what you think the need for spending will be going for depends on what you think will happen in the world and what role you think the u.s. should play in international events. defense spending is also on track to fall to a smaller number relative to the size of the economy. so there's this very sharp shift underway under current law in what the federal government

spends its money on. and because the appropriation process occurs one year at a time, the caps have been sent without any decisions having been made about exactly which programs for which services will be provided in the future that would've been provided under historical experience with those government programs. and we highlight the issue in our report as a risk going forward, that the caps have been set by the decisions about what will be cut and what will not be cut have not yet been made. other questions? yes. >> can you go back and talk a little bit more about interest spending grow substantially under projections and although it is lower than it might of been in the past it still substantially higher than it is

today. and i'm just wondering whether not you considered the possibility that interest rates have declined structurally and are going to be lower in the future than anybody would've predicted four or five years ago? >> yes. as i mentioned, we expect interest rates will rise considerably from their current level we do not think that will rise up to the levels they were at over the past few decades. we wrote about this at some length in our long-term budget outlook last summer, and we have a brief recapitulation of those arguments in this report. we've done this analysis by think about what would be different in the future relative to the 1990s-2007, race and stability in the economy in the financial markets, and relative to the 1990-2007 period we think that inflation-adjusted treasury interest rates will be about

three quarters of a percentage point lower in the future and the event in the past. and that three quarters of a percentage point difference is pretty substantial. we project that not all 10 year treasury note rate will be 4.6% by the end of the decade, with cpi inflation of 2.4%. that means inflation adjusted 10 year rate of 2.2%. as i said that compares to about 3% for real treasury 10 year rate in the 1990s 2007. we made a substantial downward adjustment. that adjustment is the net effect of a number of factors and we listened for going in different directions. the four factors we list pushing down interest rates relative to the history are number one, slower growth of the labor force. number two, slower growth of productivity. and both of those factors we

think lower interest rates because it basically affect the marginal product of capital in the production process. we also think greater income inequality is pushing up savings which tends to lower interest rates. and we think there will be greater risk premiums on private security which is to say treasury rates will be held down because of greater demand for safe assets. those four factors alone would have argued for a larger downward revision in her interest rate projection we think. on the other side, for other factors we think will push up interest rates relative experience of the previous few decades, one of those is greater federal debt. another one is slightly smaller capital inflows from overseas. a third is fewer people in their prime saving years. this is just another way of saying baby boomers are getting into older age. so fewer people in their prime

saving years. and forth a higher capital share of income argues for returning capital and thus a retired turn on treasury that competes with capital for investors. so as best as we can judge the four factors pushing down rates relative to this historical experience will be more powerful than those pushing up rates by a good deal and that's why we've made this down revision relative to history. but nonetheless we think that rates will move up a good deal from where they are now. and that is consistent we think with what the expectations of participants in financial markets and consistent with our own modeling of demand for a find as the economy strengthens. so again these are changes were mostly made last summer and the long-term budget outlook and incorporate into our august projection. we made a further small downward nudge to interest rates in this projection basically because of a declining interest rate in

other countries that makes u.s. assets relatively more attractive. we think polls money into this country. this is no doubt one of the sources of great uncertainty in our projections. and we offer in an appendix to the report rules of thumb for how the projections would be different, for economic projections were different. we offer rules of thumb for fast or slow growth in gdp for higher or lower inflation, and for higher or lowest lower edges respect not surprisingly budget outcomes are quite sensitive to interest rates. that's much more true than it would've been said a decade ago because debt is so much larger than it was a decade ago. so i think we have balance of the risk in this projection, but the risk of both sides are comparable.

>> trying to get a better handle on it. about subsidies, people in exchange is and reduced a little bit of your outlook for the. that is based on basically of one year experience on that front. now, i guess given the passage of the aca -- [inaudible] how confident do you feel about your original score and things like subsidy to that extent also about cadillac tax which was the major piece which still has yet to be of limited? >> you are absolutely right to say that we've only observed exchanging -- exchange enrollment exchanged subsidies that increment medicaid people are people are newly eligible and the cost of those people for a year.

and we don't have even such detailed data in all cases for what happened after that you. i think we learned a good deal more in the years to come. on the other hand, the source of the revisions to the projections that we made in 2010 i think have more foundation than just looking at last year would suggest. because part of what we've done here is take a more for mission of private health insurance premiums. over the five years since we did these estimates in 2010. and it is true that insurance premiums private insurance premiums could jump up next year. they could take a fall next year. they could rise by a small amount. there's a lot of uncertainty about that but we have seen now on a number of years of significantly slower growth and private health insurance premiums than we had expected in 2010. and that, including the premiums that were paid in the insurance

exchange is last year, and the premiums that we see for coverage in 2015. site think we have a strong basis for making a significant down revision to the projected cost of the subsidies offered the insurance exchanges although whether we have that amount precisely right to now of course we don't know. and i think similarly for medicaid we have now seen a number of years of slower growth in medicaid costs per beneficiary and we had expected in 2010. so although there are particular aspects of the affordable care act with only saw one therefore, we have observed slower growth for medicaid for some time. again i think with a much stronger foundation for this cumulative set of downward revision to the cost of the medicaid part of the aca and just from looking at last year's data, although once again, there is considerable uncertainty. >> and on the cadillac tax?

how important that is moving forward. >> well, as you know the excise tax on high premium insurance plans has not yet taken effect. so it is particularly hard, we don't even have the one year in that sense. there is anecdotal evidence people report on making adjustments to their plans to keep premiums on a trajectory below what they think will be subject to the tax. but those are just anecdotes at this point, as far as i'm aware. we expected, continue to expect that most of -- >> we will leave this hearing at this point as we take you to live coverage of the u.s. senate this morning. continue work on the keystone xl oil pipeline which authorized the construction of a pipeline from canada to the gulf coast the senators will start the day with an hour of debate, time will be equally divided between republicans and democrats and then starting at 2:30 p.m. we

will hear senators vote on a series of 18 amendments to the keystone xl bill him a 10 offered by democrats, eight by republicans. and now to live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. answer us, o god when we call. be gracious to us and hear our prayers. look on our nation with favor, for your promises are sure. we thank you that so many of our nation's founders put their trust in you.

make us worthy of this godly heritage. may your presence on capitol hill today so influence our senators that the thoughts they think and the words they speak will honor you. lord, don't be far from us but continue to be our hope for years to come. help us to remember how you have sustained us in the past as you provide for our daily needs. we pray in your strong name. amen.

the president pro tempore: thank you, dr. black. your prayers are wonderful. please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: today the senate will resume consideration of the keystone bill. there are up to 18 roll call votes scheduled this afternoon on benefiting amendments to the bill. i want to commend chairman murkowski and senator cantwell for working with our colleagues to get literally dozens and

dozens of amendments up and voted on in the three weeks we have been working on this bill. now it's time to get through the remaining amendments and vote up or down on passage of this bill before we leave for the week. mr. president, i understand there is a bill at the desk that is due a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the title of the bill for the second time. the clerk: s. 272 a bill making appropriation for the department of homeland security for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2015 and for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: an order to place the bill on the calendar under rule 15, i would object to further proceedings. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. mcconnell: now mr. president, thanks to the bill manager efforts that i just

referred to, along with years-long work undertaken by members on both sides senator hoeven in particular, we expect this bipartisan bill to finally pass the senate. we expect the filibuster of good american jobs to soon come to an end. that's good news for the senate. it's even better news for the people we represent. it would show their congress is capable of defying the powerful special interests who oppose keystone so we can get things done for the middle class. constructing this infrastructure project would pump literally billions of dollars into our economy. it would support thousands of jobs and it would do all with minimal environmental impact. that's according to what we've heard from the president's own state department. so it just makes sense to get this bipartisan legislation to the president for his signature. we hope he will sign the keystone jobs bill into law.

the president should expect more good ideas to head his way. that's the goal of this new congress. we want to get washington functioning again and we want to pass commonsense ideas. the keystone debate is showing how we can do both. now, one other issue mr. president. i am certainly glad to see president obama's dropped his plan to make it harder for the middle class to save for college with 529's. i fought to ensure these plans were tax free at the federal level. thanks to this incentive to save millions literally millions of americans use 529's to help prepare for college expenses. these are good plans and promote responsible savings. i'm not sure why president obama would have sought to undermine them in the first place but it's certainly good to see the president coming around to republicans' pro-middle class view on this matter.

mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the democrat leader. mr. durbin: mr. president 30 days from today on february 27 the department of homeland security the lead agency in protecting america from terrorism, will run out of money. the only way to prevent this important government agency from shutting down is for congress to pass legislation to fund the department and to do it quickly. this morning we moved to -- a second reading what's known as a clean appropriation bill, which will provide resources for this critical department. i hope that the senate can take that up quickly and pass it quickly as well. we should not even be debating the funding for the homeland security department. every other government agency has been funded through the end of the fiscal year, the end of september, but not the department of homeland security. the house republicans insisted

on separating this critical agency away from the rest of the federal government and treating it differently giving it temporary funding what's known as a continuing resolution, making it extremely difficult for the department of homeland security to do its job to keep america safe. now, why did the republicans insist that this one agency be treated differently funded in a way that it can't do its job effectively? they are using the deadline the end of february on this department's funding in an attempt to force the united states senate to accept extreme anti-immigrant amendments that have been attached to the homeland security bill in the house. the house republicans' message to the senate is very straightforward. accept our controversial immigration amendments or we will shut down the homeland security department. mr. president, that's the height of irresponsibility. now is not the time to play politics with homeland security.

just this weekend the world witnessed another horrible terrorist act the beheading of a japanese hostage by the terrorist group isis. in light of the terrorist threat that we currently face, it would be the height of irresponsibility to shut down the department of homeland security as threatened by the house republicans. that's one of the key government agencies charged with protecting americans. today i'm calling on the senate majority leader for a clean appropriation bill that we move forward on the calendar this morning. let's pass this bill. let's make sure that we do it in a timely way. let's fund this department. now, some republican leaders are arguing well, it's not such a big deal, giving temporary funding to the department of homeland security, playing roulette with the prospects of whether it will be funded for the rest of this fiscal year. last week, the republican chairman of the senate homeland

security committee here in the united states senate reportedly said and i quote that he isn't that concerned about the potential shutdown of the homeland security department, but jay johnson the secretary of the homeland security, has a much different view. he says our homeland security is already at risk because the department is operated under a short-term funding bill known as a continuing resolution. listen to what director johnson -- secretary johnson says. "as long as this department continues to operate on a continuing resolution, we are prevented from funding key homeland security initiatives including new grants to state and local law enforcement and additional border security resources." end of quote. mr. president, how many times have we heard from the other side of the aisle that the highest priority in america is our border security? many of us agreed and voted for a comprehensive immigration reform that followed more resources than ever and to

protecting the border. now the same people, the same elected officials who have been arguing for a strong border are underfunding the department with that responsibility, and the secretary reminds us. their approach to this is going to jeopardize investments in border security so what are these amendments the house republicans feel so strongly about that they are willing to risk the funding of this critical agency? the bill the house passed would defund president obama's immigration policies, including the deferred action for childhood arrivals program known as daca. mr. president, a quick history about how we reached the plight we are at today. it was 14 years ago when i introduced the dream act. the dream act was designed to take care of children brought to america by their parents children who were undocumented, and to give those children a chance. if they led a good life and finished school, if they were

prepared to go to college or join our military, to have a path to legal status. over the years this has been debated widely, and even many republican leaders have stepped up and said well, it's just fundamentally just. why would you hold the children responsible for a decision made by their parents to come to this country? why would you jeopardize the future of a child because the parents came here, overstayed their visa or failed to file the necessary papers for their child? even former arkansas governor huckabee interviewed this sunday on television made that very point. you don't arrest a parent for speeding in the front seat and then arrest the babysitting in the back seat for speeding. and he made that point in light of his decisions as governor of arkansas. so over time, this concept of the dream act has been moving toward acceptance by both

political parties but moving very slowly. 14 years we have been debating this one simple idea, that children should not be held responsible for the wrongdoing of their parents that young people brought to this country and undocumented should be given a chance. and, of course, two and a half years ago, president obama did something. he did it at the request of many senators including myself. we wrote to him and said, mr. president, while the senate and congress debate the future of the dream act, there are literally thousands of these young people who have no future in america. they don't know which way to turn. they can't get driver's licenses they can't go to school with any government assistance. they don't have any basic idea what their future is going to be. and so the president said here's what i will do. i will create this deferred action for childhood arrivals program, the daca program and if these young people will come forward, if they will submit a filing fee to cover the cost of

the program if they will submit themselves to background checks, then we will give them temporary status in america temporary status in america. we're not making them citizens or declaring them legal forever. we're saying they can go to school and work without the fear of deportation. we estimate there are two million young people in our nation of 350 million-plus who would qualify for this daca treatment. 600,000 have, in fact, registered in the two and a half years since the president's decision. daca put on hold their deportation so that these young people who grew up in this country would have a chance. these are the dreamers. they are the ones that we referred to over and over on the floor, tell their stories. think about it. america is already invested in these young people. we paid for their education. we sent them to the classrooms and the schools. they stood there every morning by their desks hand over their heart, pledging allegiance to

the same flag we pledged allegiance to this morning. they sang the only national anthem they have ever known and they are just asking for a chance. over the years, i have come to the floor to tell their stories because leaving the explanation at this point really doesn't touch on the reality of who these dreamers are. i'm going to tell another story this morning and i want the record to show this young man that i am about to speak about juan riso, is a person whom the house republicans want to deport. they have said by their vote, by the amendment they put on this appropriation bill, they want juan rios to leave the united states of america. that's their goal, deport the dreamers. all of those who signed up for daca and those who might sign up that's just part of what they are trying to achieve but that to me is the starting point that ought to be our starting point for debate. juan rios was brought to the united states when he was 10

years old. in high school, juan really decided what his calling was. military service. he became a leader in the air force junior rotc at his high school. group commander and captain rose to the rank of cadet lieutenant colonel. hearsy in high school. his dream to attend the air force academy. of course, it's a dream that couldn't happen. he's undocumented. instead, he enrolled in arizona state university. in 2010, juan rios graduated from arizona state university. what course did he study? a degree in air nautical engineering. -- aeronautical engineering. some student. here's a picture of him at his graduation. but after he graduated with this degree in engineering he

didn't know which way to turn. he couldn't enlist in the military like he wanted to do. he couldn't work as an engineer was he was undocumented. his talents were with wasted. he sent me a letter at the time and here's what juan said. the united states of america is what the country i want to live my life in, flourish as a productive citizen grow hold among my lifelong friends and one day fall in love and raise a family. so what happened to juan after daca? with the executive order gave him an opportunity to have temporary protection and not be deported? february 2015, after signing up for daca he interviewed for his first engineering job. d'juan is working as a mechanical engineer in the semiconductor industry. at the age of 27, he learned how to drive bought his first car, after living in arizona for 17 years he was finally able to visit the grand canyon for the first time. juan just sent me a letter last

week. here's what he said. "i am fortunate to have found the opportunity to prove myself as a professional, where my contributions are valued around recognized. the past two years have changed my life in every way imaginable. i thank daca. i think it is responsible responsible, it's a responsibility and a privilege and an opportunity for everyone who receives it to demonstrate that we as a community of dreamers have so much to contribute to society." mr. president, juan rios is trying to prove to everyone that he is worth this investment, that he is worth this trust. he's done it. he'll continue to do it. so why in the world do the house republicans want to deport juan rios? why do they want to give up on this young man with his idealism his determination and his record of accomplishment why do they want him to leave the united states of america? well it's because he was brought here as a 5-year-old

undocumented. and for that decision by his parents, the house republicans would say we have no use for juan rios. we don't want him to stay. there are so many other stories like this one. it's clear that daca works for america. i have been to chicago so many times and met with these dreamers. i know these young men and women. i believe in them and i believe they're going to make a difference in this country and i also want to remind my friends on the republican side of the aisle, america is a nation of immigrants. we -- our diversity is our strength. we come to this great country from so many different places and we bring so many different cultures and languages religions, ethnic backgrounds cuisine, we bring it all here. and we make it part of america's future. i know a little bit about this story because my mother because an immigrant herself brought here at the age of 2 and today i stand on the floor of the united states senate representing the great state of illinois.

that's my story. that's my family's story. that's america's story. and there's something else i would say to the critics of immigrants. immigrants bringing something special to america. each one of these immigrant families took the greatest risk of their life to come to america. some of them literally risked their lives to do it. others came to a country where they didn't speak the language, knew very few people, and didn't have any idea what their future would be but they had heard about this america place and they believed that this was a better opportunity for them and their kids. i'm sure that's what brought my family to this country. my mother to this country. and i'm sure that's what's brought a lot of people. that is part of our dan. -- d.n.a., their determination to be part of america and its future really brings to this country an energy that just can't be matched in many other places in the world. house republicans would kill

that dream. and they've shown us that by this horrible amendment which they've attached to the department of homeland security appropriation. they think america's stronger if we tell juan rios to leave. i don't. it is shameless to play politics with the life of this young man and hundreds of thousands of others. it's just shameless to put homeland security funding at risk to punish juan rios for having been ben brought to this country as a child. the house republicans feel so strongly about going dreamers -- deporting dreamers they're willing to hold up the homeland security financing bill. the house republicans are telling the senate and the president deport the dreamers or we're going to shut down the agency gone responsible for protecting america from terrorism. i hope the majority leader will reject this and the spirit on which we came together on a bipartisan basis to pass

immigration reform almost two years ago that we will reject this hate-filled message from the house republicans. for our part senate democrats will insist the department of homeland security be funded and that the president have the authority which every president has had to establish his own immigration policies. mr. president, i see there's another colleague on the floor. i'm going to yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak therein for ten minutes each and the republicans controlling the first half and the democrats controlling the second half. mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. last november the american people sent an unmistablable message to washington, d.c. varieties across the country said they were tired of the gridlock and they were tired of the lack of action by the democrat-led senate. well, we are now working again

for the american people. because voters said it was time for a new majority. the republican majority, a republican majority to get the senate working again and to get america on a better course. republicans heard the message we heard it loud and clear and we have been doing exactly what the american people have sent us here to do. under republican leadership the senate is working again for the american people and the best example of that is the bill we're considering right now in the senate on the keystone x.l. pipeline project. the obama administration has blocked and delayed this job-creating project for six years. now, republicans are moving forward. we're moving it forward as well. we've had an open debate on the bill and we've allowed amendments to the bill. imagine that. we're actually debating legislation on the floor of the senate and senators are actually offering amendments to that bill. we're all familiar with the

milestone that the senate reached last week. you know, last year under the democrats democrat leadership there were 15 -- a total of 15 up and down votes on amendments. 15 for the entire year under harry reid. so the democrat -- that's all the democrat leader allowed. by the end of the day last thursday we completed our 25th vote. just 22 days into the year the senate was more productive on amendments that than it was under 365 days under democrat leadership. we didn't stop there. today the senate will vote on up to 18 more amendments to the keystone jobs bill, and then another 12 are ready after that. several democrat senators complained the other day about what they said was a lack of amendment votes on this bill. where were they last year when the democrat leadership allowed only 15 amendments to get an up-and-down vote for an entire

year? senator schatz and senator markey two democrats had had never gotten a vote on one of their amendments in the senate before republicans gave them a vote last week. senator coons will get his first vote on an amendment today. now, all of these amendments aren't the only way the senate is working again for the american people. another example is going to happen on thursday. the energy and natural resources committee is going to hold a hearing on a bill that i introduced earlier this month. we've got four republican sponsors on that bill and four democrat sponsors, senators heinrich kaine and and now senator toomey, a republican, has added on and senator udall so now there are five democrat and five republican cosponsors. this is an idea the house passed

last year with bipartisan support. 46 democrats voted in favor of increasing exports of liquefied natural gas. the house is expected to vote and pass a bill like this this week. this is an idea that has bipartisan support in the senate as well. so it should be a no-brainer. plans to send american energy overseas are wrapped up in washington red tape. and americans who are eager for the jobs on these projects continue to wait. this bipartisan bill will do a lot to fix that problem. it would set clear deadlines for washington to make timely decisions on these import permit and export permits important permits to export liquefied natural gas. once there is an agreement an appropriate environmental tree view the secretary of energy will have 45 days to act on a permit application. increasing american natural gas exports would do three important things.

it would create jobs, that of course is number one and most important. these are american jobs, jobs for americans, private sector wants to create these jobs, not government jobs, private sector jobs. second thing it would help to reduce our nation's trade deficit. and the trade deficit currently stands at $39 billion. the third thing is that these exports would support our american allies. last year russia invaded ukraine and seized control of crimea. why? largely because of the natural gas facilities there. there were a group of senators who were actually in ukraine, i was one of them the day the russian helicopters landed just us just north of crimea. this was about the gas. we could help reduce the threat russia poses to europe by offering more options for our allies to buy american natural gas. there is no good reason for the endless delays on these export permits. our bill would speed up the process.

these export projects are job creators, bipartisan support that i have been stuck in washington's bureaucrat gridlock. the senate is going to be acting to get these projects moving. that's why the american people sent us here. it's how the senate is supposed to work. committees consider the ideas on both sides bills get debated in committee on the floor and every senator has a chance to talk about it. and then to offer amendments that might improve legislation. that's how things always worked before it's a slow process it was meant to produce consensus. majority leader harry reid changed all of that. the democrat majority leader did everything he could to block amendments to and to bypass and skip committees. did he do it to make better laws? no not at all. did he do it to speed up actions so the senate would be more

productive? of course not. it was a transparent campaign tactic to keep vulnerable democrat senators from having to take tough votes. even democrats couldn't get votes on their amendments. well that gimmick by harry reid and the campaign tricks failed and the american people were not fooled. that's one of the reasons that voters across the country chose republicans to lead both houses of congress. the american people said they deserve better, and the american people are absolutely right. the american people want democrats to start working with republicans to get things done. that's what senator heinrich and i and others who are cosponsoring this measure are doing with our bill. the american people want an honest debate on important issues like the keystone jobs bill as well. the american people want their representatives in the united states senate to be able to offer amendments to bills like this one. that's how the senate should

work. that's how the senate is working under republican leadership, and that's how it's going to continue to work. so i'm pleased to see the votes are going to be held on these amendments. i'm happy to stand up and cast my vote on behalf of the people of wyoming. i look forward to more votes more debate, more consideration of ideas from both sides of the aisle. now, it's interesting mr. president, president obama has threatened to veto eight separate pieces of legislation so far this year. it's interesting to the point that it's gotten a headline in today's "usa today," page 2-a obama veto threats are at record high. veto threats at a record high. the president said he'll veto another two bills that haven't even been introduced yet. they haven't been introduced, how does he know what they're going to say? how does he know what they're going to say once they go through the process of being

amended and bet passed this the house and the senate and get to his desk? the president should reconsider each and every one of these veto threats. the senate is moving forward. the white house is putting up roadblocks. that's not what the american people were asking for in november. the american people want us to work together, to get things done to make their lives better. it's about them. it's not about the people that sit in this body. it's about the american people, their quality of life, people living paycheck to paycheck, day to day what their lives are about. the republican congress and this senate continues to listen to the american people. the president of the united states continues to ignore them. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.