chair. >> thank you senator lee? >> thank you to everyone appearing here today in this commission to make recommendations that are so important. this will have a profound impact on those that have previously certained in served in our military. i hope they can take the time to give these recommendations the thorough consideration they deserve. and they can become part of a debate that we need to have to help figure out how we can provide better for the needs of those who serve us and have served us in the past and simultaneously help us to maintain the strength, the divideability of our military. i will ask this question to

anyone who would like to answer it, did the commission find they -- the current lack of a retirement program similar to that, recommended by the commission, that that is having the absence of a plan like that, right now, is having an impact on recruiting and retention? currently we don't have a retirement system in place in the military that provides any benefits for those who serve for less than 20 years. is that impacting recruiting? >> senator lee thank you for the question. when we looked, we took a very strategical approach to support an all-volunteer force for the

future. and to design that we structured the program for how we might make a recommendation to modernize the current retirement system. the recommendations that we provided within we are absolutely convinced they're the right set of recommendations here on having a blended retirement plan, and because it does two things. it supports the retention needs by the services, and it also supports the recruiting challenges that the services would have. we believe that the recommendations we made take care of the recruiting needs, and it is very important that they also support the current force profiles that the services

are very interested in, making sure we provide them with the tools to make the adjustment ps and the recruitment and retention needs as we move into the future. >> if we were to adopt something like this you think it would help recruiting and retention? >> absolutely. >> let's talk about the commission's finding, the commission found, can quote the current compensation system is fundamentally sound and does not require sweeping overhaul. close quote. it recommends that service members that need nutritional assistance be transitioned into the snap program formally known as food stamps. if service members are in need

of s.n.a.p. benefits and the report is contemplating that some or all of them will need system s.n.a.p. benefits that would be inaddition. does that under mine their current compensation being adequate? >> we're basically talking about the pay table itself. we didn't see a need to change the pay table because we supported the all-volunteer force in the last 14 years. but we also recognize that because there is a constant change here, a new generation and also just the requirements of the service members themselves, with regard to the size of families and that kind of thing. snap there is an important

purpose that the s.n.a.p. program served. we talked through that extensively. i will ask commissioner carny if he would respond very quickly senator, i would like to ask commissioner higgins to follow up as well. >> okay, and mr. chairman i have a minor follow up question i want to add to that. i km curious how many people might be, if you eliminate f.s.s.a., how many will be enrolled? s.n.a.p. and what the increased cost would be. >> right now the number of enroll enrollees in s.n.a.p. is 20,000 to 22,000. in s.f.f.s.s.a. it is restrictive

and harder. you have to go through your chain of command to get it there where these kinds of things that make is less attractive and less useful. right now for oversees it may serve some useful purpose. but the s.n.a.p. program, not with standing the fact that it needs to exist for some of our military, it is something that is easier to get it it provides better nutritional value. so fazing out one of them is a good idea because s.n.a.p. fills in very nicely.

>> first, i want to check that your votes were unanimous? >> yes. >> and that is an extraordinary thing for us on this side of the table, we don't see much of that particularly with the make up of this commission. i have -- i know you probably came with different viewpoints at the beginning and the fact that you worked this hard and came up with a proposal adopted unanimously is something that i hope is something that we because and realize that you might have gotten this right. i want to compliment you in that regard. first, i need our country needs to save more and our military

always sets the example for our country. in terms of the values and ethics. i think the way this plan embraces saving is terrific. i think most persons don't know that your tsp contributions are not matched currently unlike all other federal employees. i think that is a double standard that is inappropriate. so the fact that we would move to a match for members of the military makes a great deal of sense. i think this part of it is terrific. now, here is the tricky part if we're going to reduce to find benefits to 40%, and someone can retire with 20 at 38, they can't access the tsp until they are 59 1/2. not too long after that they would look at social security in addition to that.

so during that period of time, assuming someone is retiring at 38 or 39, was there any discussion about making a special rule or circumstances where someone could access tsp before they were 59 1/2. >> senator, i'm going to ask the commissioner these are the kind of questions that these former comptrollers really love to have. >> i have missed him we had great work when i first arrived in the senate. >> thank you so much. right now as you well know, you retire at 20 and then you start getting monthly payment.

by definition the 40% you're speaking about you're going to get. now in addition to that, once you retire, you can get a lump sum payment if you choose to do so or you may say i don't want that i want it later on. you have given the individual more choice than they have had today. you can choose the lump sum payment, and you can get that with a reduced payment until full social security kicks in. so that you basically, now, are in much more control of your financial situation. one other point as well, this was mentioned by my colleague commissioner carney and others. we put a huge premium on education. and we spoke to some of the foreign military to see how they

do it as well. right now you take an 18-year-old or a 19-year-old or 20-year-old and give him or her a -- you fire hose them for a few hours about financial management and it is in one ear and out the other. what we are proposing to do is have regular sessions at key points in their degrees. key promotions or a family change, so they can learn the nuances of financial manage. so when they hit the 20 or leave sooner they can make an informed choice about what they want to do with the money they're entitled to so to answer your question, it seems to me at least, that you're putting the person in uniform at a far greater advantage because of the lump sum, pause of the financial

education than they currently have today. >> i know my time is almost up. i have some questions about whether or not we should continue to make contributions matched. with their payment, whether or not that costs out in a way that would make since sense to the commission. some questions about why not just going to -- what are the advantages there, and the one that i really want to hear from you about, and i want to recognize the general for the trailblazing he worked on especially for the suicide problem, but i'm concerned about another command, standing up a

three star we tried to work against quite to many flags, in fact gates did away with the joint forces command, and i am trying to think how this new $300 million a year how this stand up adds every year. i am -- i have to be convinced that we need another group at the pentagon. i have a great deal of affection for what goes on, but three stars are expensive with everything that goes with them and everything we will gain by adding this new command at the pentagon, and i am over my time by 1:48, so i don't know if the chairman want its reported now.

>> senator mccaskill thank you very much. i know we're out of time here, but i would like to take the opportunity so we can respond to that. let me just say real quickly the readiness command that was commended, we took a lot of time spent on that. every recommendation that we made in this report was made with that in mind and the need for readiness, and there was a readiness implication to every recommendation that we made. so when we proposed a readiness command, we did it in a context of much bigger than a medical readiness component. they are much larger in turms of a number of things that fall underneath readiness. it is on the one component of that and we were basically wanting to make sure that the, that if we're going to ensure

success of the medical readiness, we must have proper oversite. and that means having the right kind of people, the right person in charge with the right kind of ranking to be able to go to the budget meetings and to those decision making vennues and hold the service presence, and to be able to have influence with the surgeon generals. i will ask the commissioner to speak to that if you will. >> it is absolutely essential that in this whole process in changing the way we deliver medical care that we keep a viable training ground for not only the doctors and physicians but the entire medical team for the medics so they're trained for the thing that civilian hospitals don't do and that is

go to war. there will be a tendency as we give dependency opportunity on the outside, there could be a tendency in future budget periods to draw down on what is left on that mtf with our eyes covered not realizing we may have to deploy the people in those mtfs far away for those individuals in combat. to me that is an absolute essential piece in that entire thing to ensure that we do not allow that to at trophyeatrophy. and every single one of our recommendations as i went through them, and i understood where i sat before. without getting into great detail i will tell you every single one of our

recommendations impacts readiness in some way. this is critical, we gain efficiencies in readiness, someone has to look at the entire readiness portfolio to include medical and make sure that we maintain that. i will end by saying i think the 300 million is a conservative large number. we think it exists currently. many of them were transferred to other locations in the pentagon and the resource much of that we pulled out and you will see a much smaller bill than the $300 million sited in our report. >> thank you, senator grant, please. >> thank you all, for a lot of hard work and i think a very good product. to those that want to suggest alternatives you're welcome.

we'll take any new good idea. we will accept criticism. if you have a good idea bring it. if you think they missed the mark we will listen to you but change is afoot and it is necessary. congress required you to do your job, do you understand what we were asking you to do? were we trying to get you to fix a broken system, and there is an old adage, if it's not broken don't fix it or make a system better. what was your own mandate in your mind? >> senator graham, thank you for that question. it is our understanding that our mandate was to modernize make recommendations to modernize. >> so it was not your job to just save money. it was jr. understanding that congress wanted you to look at a

70-year-old system and make it better and more efficient. >> that is correct. >> do you agree that we have the best combat medicine any time in the modern history. i think we got better and better. >> but we have it now? >> yeah. >> we maintain it. >> that's right done lose it. if the core function is to make sure the force is ready to fight, then we have to make sure we hang on to that, that is what you're telling us, right? >> exactly. >> we learned when the war first started that a lot of people didn't have dental coverage and 25% of people were disqualified because of dentist problems. >> that is true. we have overcome that. we don't want to go back to that system of having a health care system that did you want make you ready to fight. a health care system that can't

keep you in the fight and save your life if you're injured. i think senator kerry probably knows more about that than anybody. those are my guide posts. i don't want to lose ground on the major functions. no one is suggesting that we're changing the retirement system to 40% versus 50% for those on active duty are you? everybody is grandfathered? >> yes. >> i heard that conversation. i just walked into this room not knowing the context, i would think that a 40% retirement change had been recommended by those on the committee. this chart who did your polling? >> that polling was done by true choice. it has to do with the survey that we conducted. >> i can't imagine too many things that i would do for 80% of the people prefer something new to something they have. you feel good about those

numbers? >> senator, we feel very good about that unanimously. >> okay. what about the retired community. do you have data about how they feel. the proposed changes? >> well, the feedback that we have gotten is that -- >> the retired military members and find out. >> we polled retired as well as active duty and reserve components. >> what were the numbers on the retired community? >> senator, let me take that question for record. >> fair enough i want to see both ends of the spectrum here. it seems to me that the jury is in that the people on active duty like what you're proposing. if they have an option they would take the new system. members of this committee versus the retired force, what do they think about the proposed changes. is that correct?

>> that is correct just retirement. >> at the end of the day, your recommendations on health care are driven by the fact that we can provide better choice, more efficient for the patient and the department of defense, and get more choice and better coverage, is that right? >> that is correct. >> if we do nothing in terms of health care costs, it is exploding in terms of d.o.d.'s overall budget. >> in terms of fiscal sustainability, that is correct. >> you have a situation where you have to deal with retiree health care, to fight the war today or tomorrow and that is a choice we don't want to make. >> thank you all for your hard work. >> thank you. >> thank you all for your service on this commission many of you that have served in other ways. i have a question about

retirement proposals, could we get chart three up maybe for a way of providing a point of discussions, and chairman, i will directly questions to you. if you want to farm them out that is fine. this shows on the left, the current defined benefit system and you show your blended plan of a defined benefit ail long with -- along with a tsp match. is there any consideration about trying to move to a pure contribution system? >> senator you know we have a defined benefit system now, and to move to a complete defying contribution system it would not give us all of the retention benefits of the traditional military retirement.

that is why we wanted to keep both systems blended. we could take care of our retention needs and the recruiting needs. >> does anyone else want to elaborate? so i understand that trying to keep benefits the same or keep on example better services and personnel flexibility maintaining the force, and the assessment of the commission is the 20 year defined benefit plan is important to maintain that last plan. >> yes, senator, that is correct. >> any consideration of like a stair step approach to the continuation pay, owner saying the one at st 12 years, four years extension having two or three periods within a 20 year

time horizon where you're encouraging people to reinlest or officers to remain. >> senator, the current program as it is today, the compensation system within we have those bonuses. we have those stepping stones that service members have benefitted. this would be that retention piece that would take the service member now to a point of having 12 years plus a four-year obligation to get him to that 16th year that means they're close enough to retirement that retention will keep them there. >> so the thinking is that not many people leave after 12, and very few leave after 16? >> that is correct. >> under this proposal the hypothetical e-7 who served three tours down range and has

had seven or eight years down range, three or four deployments. he would be leaving with his contributions to his defined contribution plans and the government match, is that right? >> if he -- >> if he didn't reenlist at seven or eight years. >> and there is probably data to illustrate this, do we have any problem with this mid career senior nco officer in the six to nine year range? >> it depends on the military operation specialty. it is one thing to get a infantry man in for 20 years as opposed to someone who has i.t. stills or is an airplane mechanic. that is why it is essential that

they based on the military occupation specialty i will tell you, rather than stair step, i believe that our modelling shows this is the critical period. my guys used to tell me the critical period was eight years and 27 days. if i could keep someone in it under a defined contribution past that average mark i had a better opportunity to maintain them longer. our modelling for this particular plan tells us that that ten to 12 year mark is critical. >> my time is almost expired. my last question will need to wait for another day. >> you want to ask another question? >> sure, i would be happen to. >> i have been stationed at

bases that had nice commissary, and we need them to provide choices that our service members have become accustomed to. was there any planning around bases and forts about weather a commissary is needed? >> we spend time talking to family members and service members and across the country, polling told us the same thing. we had people that were in different places for how they preserve the value of the commissaries. overwhelming people believed it was very important in retention to have the commissaries there. there are people that would tell us that they have these shops.

we talked to some of the big shop warehouses if you will. the stores, the walmarts, and the others the benefits they would offer if they were to offer a benefit. at the end of the day, no one was willing to stand behind their comments they made or had about providing savings to the service member. our intention here is that we could protect the service members and they believe this is a big savings to them and that they also believe it was a retention tool. that's the way we went about making and moving forward with our recommendation on the commissaries. >> several of the chains talked about issues a card to the military, when we ask the representatives point-blank would you do it?

never got a straight answer. at the same time we did hear that some people will order their food online, they know that. people want that. they want it because it is convenient for a start, it is near them it is military, it is responsive to their needs and we looked at that and made our recommendations on what feed back -- different folks have different requirements. overwhelmingly this is not something they wanted to go away. >> proclivity is based on a whole bunch of things and one of them is the size of family. there is arguments about how much it saves. but if you even cut the high number, the 31% in half, it is still a great savings to that e-7 with four kids and a wife who made a decision to stay home and take care of the kids and to be an at-home mom.

it is an unbelievable place for them to save the money they need as part of the benefit we provided them. >> thank you all again for your service and this important report. we look forward to working on it. you know having dealt with enlisted men new to the army, and the financial literacy programs are important as well. now i say maybe we should add that to our orientation as well. >> thank you i would like unanimous consent to provide written comments for up to 30 days from the closing of the hearing. i would like to thank the witnesses for their extraordinary contribution to this critical issue. thank you all very much, the hearing is adjourned. >> thank you mr. chairman.

if you miss'd any of this hearing, you can see it again in it's entirety on our companion network, c-span. >> wednesday on c-span 3 ashton carter testifies at his senate confirmation hearing. watch live coverage starting at 9:30 eastern time.

on the next washington journal, two members of congress discuss the health care law. first gene green will talk about republican efforts to repeal the law. then rob whitman will discuss the law and the president's budget request for the defense budget. then wayne frederick will join us on our bus for a black colleges and universities tour. the political landscape has changed with the 114th congress. not only will are there 43 new republicans, and 15 new democrats in long. there is also 108 women in congress including one veteran. keep track using congressional

chronicle on cspan.org. new congress best access on c-span, c-span 2, c-span radio, and c-span.org. this sunday on q and a, david brooks on writing an article for the times and the awards he gives out at the end of the year. the sidney awards. >> they are given for the best magazine essays of the year. they can be in the counselors or obscure magazines, they always come out around christmas and new years, and the idea that is a good week to step back and not read little instant stuff, tweets, not even newspaper articles, but the time to read something deeper and longer and to celebrate the longer pieces. i do believe that magazines change history. the new republic was the most

influential of the magazine. it created progressivism. conservatism bare life existed until a national review and gave it a review. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q and a. >> today president obama responded to letters that people wrote to him about how they have benefitted from the health care law. from the white house, this is 12 minutes. well, we are here with a bunch of folks that took the time to come to washington dc, and tell me stories they told me in letters they have written in

the course of the last year. everyone here has benefits from the affordable care act. it is a pretty good representative sample of people whose lives have been impacted in powerful ways. you have folks like tonia regina, and don who had cancer, in some cases before the affordable care act was passed and had trouble getting insurance, and because we no longer allow insurance companies to bar people they were now able to get health insurance and have the security and relief needed. regina said, for the first time since she was 12 years old, when she was first diagnosed with cancer she felt free. she is now planning her wedding with her fiance.

tonia, who shortly after signing up for the aca, in a check up, was diagnosed with a brain tumor. would not have discovered it had it not been for the affordable care act and certainly would not have been able to afford treatment, and the same is true for don, as a consequence as a regular treatment, and a colon colonoscopy is now cancer free after finding a tumor. some other people were able to benefit from medicaid expansion. ann in connecticut and dan in california were able to get on a plan they could afford even as as they were working it. ann was able to catch breast cancer early. we have small business people

like la net over here, and darlene who because they were working for a company, had a tough time affording the premiums and that saved about $300 and something a month. she was able to cut her premiums in half and she has a cup cake company i think, i think she has samples but secret service may have gotten them. maria, a teacher in fairfax virginia. naomi, a farmer in roberta georgia. both of them were able to benefit from greatly reduced premiums and are able to pay their bills at the same time, and susan has a wonderful story,

a doctor in rural west virginia. not only are her and her sister able to bent from the affordable care act, but more importantly for her, patients she had been seeing for years that would forego critical treatments are now able to pay for the tests and medication they need to maintain their health. to the bottom line is that the affordable care act is not a distraction. the debate about making sure that every person in america is able to get basic high quality affordable health care is not

somizee izebet. she is now able to finish college and plan her life, that is something that we should expect a country as wealthy as ours is providing to every citizen. the idea that we would even consider taking that away from regina tonia or suzanne's patients makes no sense. the good news is that we have over ten million people that have now signed up under the federal exchanges and millions more signing up from the expanded medicaid that is taking place in states across the country. those are millions of people

saving money, getting preventive care millions of people who feel for the first time in some cases, the security of knowing that if something goes wrong in their families or with them, they are covered. that somebody has their backs they're not going to be bankrupt, they do not have to split the pills they're prescribed in half. they can continue with their professioningss or their schooling. it is good for all of us. so my understanding is the house of representatives has scheduled yet another vote today to take health care away from the folks sitting around this table. i don't know whether it is the 55th or the 60th time but they're taking this vote. but i asked this question before. why is it this would be at the

top of their agenda? making sure that folks who don't have health care aren't able to get it. it was, maybe, plausible to be opposed to it before it is implemented. but now it is implemented and it is working. people are being covered as anticipated. the premiums on average are less than $100 when you take into account the tax credit. it is affordable for the people it was designed to help. health care inflation is at it's lowest rate in 50 years. the overall tab for the affordable care act is costing less than the original projections. in every respect this is working not just as intended but better

than intended. the notion that we would play politics with the lives of folks who are out there working hard every single day, trying to make ends meet trying to look after their families makes absolutely no sense. and that is a message that i want to send very directly today. i have a second interest here, and that is that we still have the opportunity for millions of more people to sign up. the deadline for signing up for 2015 is february 15th. so we have a little over a week for people to sign up for the cost of less than your cell phone or cable bill, you can have the same kind of health security that the folks around this table do. i want to remind everybody and told the story that she didn't

think she needed health insurance. ended up getting it because she heard there was a fee involved if she didn't get it purchasing it and found out she was eligible for medicaid and after she signed up she discovered that she had breast cancer. so it turns out that even if you think out there that you don't need health insurance, you may need it at some poin in your life. here is an opportunity to sign up. i want everyone to get on health care dot gov. find out what options are available to you in your state and your community. we have people around the table finding out they can pay as little as $20 or $30 a month. the average is less than $100 a

month. and that is something that a lot of folks out there can afford. we have millions of people still qualified, who have a chance to sign up, but you have to do it by february 15th. get on healthcare.gov, look at what your options are. understand this is something that can give you the security and the peace of mind that is price less. to my friends on capitol hill i ask them once again to consider why they would think it an important pryoriority so take away health care from some ten million people. people who are working hard and in many ways at no fault of

their own were dealt a band hand. regina did not ask at 12 to get a series of cancers. we want her to succeed. she is overcoming incredible ods.ods odds. why do we want to make it impossible for her to live out her life with security and peace of mind. it doesn't make any sense. i want to thank everybody here for sharing their stories. i'm very proud of them, and proud of the work that they're doing to help spread the word. but i hope all of you since you have a lot of cameras and microphones, spread the word as well. you have to sign up by february 15th. thank you, everybody. i just got word of the video

that had been released. i don't know the details of the confirmations, but should this video be authentic welcome it is one more indication of the viciousness and barbarity of this organization. i think we will redouble the vigilance of a global coalition to make sure they're degraded and ultimately defeated. it also ipd cases the degree to which whatever ideology is bankrupt.

and they appear to only be interesting in death and destruction. thank you, everybody. >> thank you. wednesday, on c-span 3, defense secretary nominee ashtop carter testifies at his senate confirmation committee. watch live service starting at 9:30 eastern time. on the next washington journal, two members of congress discuss the health care law. first, gene green will talk about republican efforts to repeal the law. then rob whitman will discuss the law and the president's budget request for the defense department. later, dr. wayne frederick will join us from the c-span bus as part of our historically black colleges and universities tour.

>> the political landscape has changed with the 114th congress pl not only are there 43 new republicans, 15 new democrats in the house there is also 108 women in congress including the first african-american republican in the house and the first woman veteran in the senate. keep track of the members of congress with the congressional chronicle on c-span.org. they have voting results and statistics about every session of congress. it is on c-span, c-span 2, c-span radio, and c-span.org. this sunday on q and a, david brooks, a columnist for the "new york times." >> the sidney awards are given for the best magazine essays for

the year. and the idea is there is they always come out around christmas and new years. that is a good week to step back and not read little read instant stuff tweets, step back and have the time to read something deeper and longer and daze to celebrate those longer pieces. i do believe magazines change history. the new republic which until its recent zrunks was the most influential political magazine of the 21st history, it created progressive progressivism. conservatism barely existed before national review, and gave it a voice. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern. >> next, house minority leader talks about jobs and the economy. at this event hosted today at the brookings institution, she speaks about president obama's 2016 budget request, and funding

the homeland security department. this is 1:10. >> everyone here today this is a very exciting day. as you know, brookings likes to be in the middle of the great debates of our country. this is going to be a year of really fundamental debates about the future of what happened to growth and is it shared? and we might actually get around to arguing about what should our government spend money on, and how are we going to pay for it. we've had crisis rather than having real arguments about that the last few years, it's a real honor for me to interestroduce -- joining us today she has proudly represented california's 12th district for the past 27

years. i'll continue with the introduction, but i want to say a couple things, first of all, please silence your cell phones, tweet up a storm if you want, but slinsz your cell phones. to tweet it's #pelosiat it's #pelosiatbrookings. and also, we will be circulating cards for you to ask your questions, i'm going to try to ask as many of them as i can. i want to thank all the folks of brooking s brookings who have worked very hard. >> nancy pelosi has proudly represented california's district for 27 years. she has led the house democrats for over a decade. the first woman in american history to serve as speaker --

the american recovery and reinvestment act and quite a lot of other legislation as well. as you will hear from the remarks, proper legislative -- been an advocate of clean energy, government transparency and accountability -- it is up a pleasure to welcome nancy pelosi to brookings. thank you for joining us today. >> thank you. >> good morning, everyone thank you all for being here, it's an

honor, it's really an honor to be here with members and honored guests of brookings institution. thank you, e.j. for your kind words. and thank you to the senior chair of brookings. for almost 100 years brookings has been the first name -- you can't here? >> for over 100 years brookings has been the first word in forward looking public policy. this institution and president 'stro talbot and your fellows have been a strong and steady intellectual resource to private, public and nonpolicy makers across the country. together we can reach all

americans in our discussion. beginning this year, this new year, in a new congress, we have both an opportunity and a responsibility to reflect on our progress toward that america, and refocus and renew our efforts for it. reflecting on our progress. six years ago in january, president obama stood on the steps of the capitol as he took the oath of office and issued a call for swift bold action now. not only to create new jobs, but to lay a foundation for growth. one week and one day later house democrats passed the american reinvestment and recovery act. one of the biggest public investments in our nation's history history. the recovery act created jobs

revitalized our economy. the democratic congress followed up by passing the president's budget, a plan for growth and opportunity based on three pillars. investments in health care, in education and innovation, and in energy. our aims were clear. reduce the deficit. believing that health care must be a right for all americans, not just a privilege for a few, we massed the affordable care act. even if there were no other reason to pass the affordable care act, if every american were

happy with his or her own health insurance and health care, we still would have had to pass the bill because the cost of health care in america was unsustainable. unsustainable to individuals, to families, to businesses large and small, to governments local and -- importantly the affordable care act is helping to drive down health care cost growth to historic lows. today the affordable care act has delivered newfound health security to 16 million americans and extended the life of the medicare trust fund by 13 years. maybe this is so i can get a drink of water in between. i don't know.

i revert to my mother of five voice to project across the room. recognizing that indication has been the indispensable ladder to achieve the american dream. the democratic caucus acted to strengthen early childhood education, deepen our commitment to vulnerable students and dramatically expand access to affordable college education. we pass a g.i. bill for the 21st century for their veterans and their families as part of the largest increase in veteran funding in our history making historic investments in education. health care and economic opportunities. in terms of american innovation, we substantially bolstered our investments. fueling basic research and

driving forward innovative energy technologies. i'll expand on this in a moment. knowing that our reliance on foreign fossil fuels was healthy for our economy, and the air our children breathe. democrats acted to make america energy independent. by increasing domestic energy production, and we increased energy efficiency and more than doubled clean energy production. solar power is up by tenfold and wind is up by 3 fold. in terms of wind, america is number one in the world. this progress is critically important as we address the climate prices. knowing that the only way for the economy to fully recover we must recognize that the middle class was the real -- are the

real job creators in america. in a consumer economy when workers have the wages and confidence to spend, they generate demand and it's inturned creates jobs, it's about bigger paychecks. there is an important connection. i said i'd talk about the reconstruction. this is an important connection about america's economy. the success of the middle class is the most important engine of economic growth and of meaningful deficit reduction. this understanding is consistent with middle class economics, which the president articulated in his state of the union address last month, and the budget he released yesterday. democrats commitment to middle class economic stance in sharp contrast to the republicans relentless trickle down agenda, the agenda that drove our economy into a