unity where there are job openings and have the business help design the training program collapse the training program and a mid-career person who needs a job right away maybe a single mom or a guy who has been laid off and now needs to get back in the workforce. they don't have the luxury, necessarily of two years of study. get them into something where six, eight ten weeks of training and right now, if you complete this successfully we know there will be a job for you because the business helped design the program. if you are a high school student who is interested in doing something that doesn't necessarily require a four-year degree we're getting community colleges to link up with the high school ahead of time the high school student can then start getting credit get a

hands-on experience in some case wes businesses who are partnering with the community college and now that high school student has gotten a head start on moving into the career and they're also saving money in the process. if it's a student who wants to go to a four-year university but they don't have the money to say, come right away to cleveland state, even though cleveland state is a pretty good place relative to a lot of other schools. go to a community college first, but make sure that they're getting up front the kind of counseling that they need so that they're taking the credits that are transferable in the fields that they need so that they're not wasting time in the community college taking out pell grants and loans and then they get to the four-year university and then they have to start all over again. in each of these cases by us

linking businesses, four-year institutions community colleges, high schools we can create a series of pathways of success and it can be life long and the great thing about community colleges is they're flexible in the way of four-year institutions because of the nature of those institutions because it's harder to do. community colleges they can adapt and meet a need quickly. so a new business comes to town, we need machine tool operators or we need coders or we need whatever it is and potentially you can design something quickly, that's effective and makes an immediate difference. so we've put a lot of resources into community colleges and we're highlighting these programs encouraging the kinds of links that i just described and we're going to keep on doing it. all right?

[ applause ] okay. let's see. right there. go ahead. she was very excited to ask me a question. >> my name's helen xian and welcome to cleveland. we love this city it's a hard working city and hardworking county so thank you for coming. i have a two-part question. first, who's in your bracket? >> i wasn't that creative. i think kentucky's going to take it but you know, i haven't won since my first year in office. clearly, i'm not spending as much time watching college basketball as i once did so i wouldn't necessarily take my -- you know, take my bracket and copy it although i suspect i'm not the only person picking

kentucky. >> no, i am too. the other part of my question since you've been in office what has surprised you the most? >> that's an interesting question. what surprised me the most? >> i'll start by saying what has not surprised me. i'm not surprised by. >> that decency, resiliency and grit of the hardworking people and the fact that they're not as divided as washington would seem to reflect. [ applause ] >> because i travel around the country a lot. [ applause ] but one of the great things about being president is you can pretty much go anywhere. i say, hey i want to come by. okay. and then, you know so you can go to factories and you can go

to community colleges and you can go to national parks and go to every state and meet people and it turns out that, you know, what i talked about back in 2004 about this being a united states of america it really is true outside of washington and that's encouraging. that makes me happy. what has surprised me, even though i had served in the senate was the continued difficulties in congress getting stuff done that shouldn't be controversial. there are some issues that i knew would be controversial. i mean, we know that if there's a debate in congress about

abortion, that's going to be controversial. there are strong-held views on each side and hard to reconcile. we understand that and that's part of the democracy and it never gets perfectly resolved but i have been pushing for us to fund infrastructure since i came into office because we've got $2 trillion worth of dilapidated roads bridges, sewer lines and then there's a whole new infrastructure that we have to build in terms of the smart grid that's more secure and reliable in terms of how we use energy and making it more efficient. there are broadband lines that still need to be going out into every part of the country. now the recovery act that i passed with the help of these members of congress when we first came in didn't just help to avert recession. it also was the largest

investment in infrastructure in decades and we made significant progress. for example, in just getting broadband lines out in the rooural area and we made progress and we still got a whole bunch to do, and if we talked privately to our republican friends we said we really need to do some infrastructure. why aren't we doing it? the reason is the degree to which constant campaigning and sort of the polarization of the basis and the inability, it seems, to just agree on a core set of facts means even some of our republican friends want to

work with us will do, they'll be viewed as compromisers or get a primary challenge by someone further in the right and it becomes hard to get basic stuff done like when the government was shut down or recently that the department of homeland security was shut down. we can have a significant debate about immigration. not everybody will agree with my view that we are a nation of immigrants and we have a broken system and we can craft an immigration agenda that holds into account folks who came here illegally, forces them to have a background check. they have to pay back taxes but gives them a pathway and in turn strengthens our borders. that's my view. it's good for the economy and i understand some folks won't agree with me and the notion

that you would threaten to not fund the very department that is responsible for securing our borders because you're mad that our borders are not secured. that's not a good way of doing business. so that surprises me a little bit. [ laughter ] and i think the other -- there is a connected issue and i'll make this last point and go to the next question. i think it's hard for voters to see why things don't work in washington. they get frustrated that they're not working and there is a sense of play in both their houses partly because the media is so splintered up. if you're watching fox news, you

get an entirely different reality than if you're watching msnbc and everything is just like an opinion, but there are hard, cold facts about how things work and who's being responsible and who's not and the challenge is making sure the voters are aware of that and then hold elected officials accountable for their positions. that's why i talked about the budget. the republican budget will not end up getting passed. my budget won't be passed given i've got to work with the republican congress, but it is a reflection of what our priorities are and it's good for people to know what's in there and our democracy only works when we're informed enough that we can say, well, you know what? i don't think we should cut medicaid for families that have

a disabled child. that's not who we are. i know my neighbor who relyies on that. that's important. i may not like obama, but if we know that there are 16 million people who now have health insurance and my health insurance hasn't been affected and, in fact, the health care premiums across the board are going up at a slower rate than they have in 50 years it's not clear to me why i would want to have 16 million people suddenly not have health insurance who will then be going to the emergency room and then i'm going to end up paying for them because someone has to pay for them and i'll have higher premiums. you know, that's -- it's that if we know what the issues are and who is taking our positions i think our democracy funkctions

well. right now people hear there's a mess there's an argument and they're at it again and often people just withdraw and don't vote and then you know, people are cynical and dissatisfied and that actually empowers special interest and the status quo which we want to discourage. all right. that was probably too long an answer. [ laughter ] let me ask that young man right there in the purple shirt. that's a good-looking shirt right there. yeah. >> how can you inspire -- >> what's your name? >> my name is nelson. i'm a high school student. >> what year are you? >> junior? >> junior. starting to think about colleges and all that? >> yeah. >> starting to take all of those tests? malia is going through this. are you getting enough sleep?

>> yeah. >> okay. good. all right. what's your question? i'm sorry. >> how can you inspire children who want to follow a political career path to become the best they possibly can in the future and stuff like that. >> are you interested? >> uh-huh. >> that's great. i'm proud of you for that. >> thanks. my most important advice is worry more about what you want to do rather than what you want to be and what do i mean by that? i think there are a lot of folks who get into politics and say to themselves i want to be a -- blank. i want to be a congressman and i want to be a senator or i want to be a president. their focus is then i want to get that position. and that leads some young

ambitious people to say, it doesn't matter to me what i stand for as long as i can get the position. and you end up if you're talented enough, maybe getting the position but along the way you haven't really accomplished much and if you do end up getting the position, you don't know why you're there or what you want to the do with it. and i think that politics and public service is an incredibly noble profession but it's a hard life as these folks will tell you. you're away from your family, you're under incredible scrutiny and people are criticizing you all of the time. you miss birthday parties. you miss soccer games. you're on the road. chicken dinners and the chicken is not always great.

[ laughter ] you do not get enough sleep. you're strong raise money. so so, the only reason to do it is if you're getting something done. if you're helping somebody get health care or you're helping somebody get a job or you're making sure our troops when they come home they're treated with the dignity and respect that they've earned if you're triering to clean up the environment. so -- [ applause ] >> so rather than think, okay i want that office. my advice to you would be start serving. what are you passionate about? what do you care about? do you care about some kids in your neighborhood that maybe don't have the same opportunities because they're poor? and that really bugs you? well, start mentoring those kids and start volunteering at a boys and girls club and start, you

know getting your friends involved and organizing a fund-raiser to build a new playground. are you interested in the environment? are you worried about climate change? you know what? get started now. go find a group of like-minded people and talk to your members of congress and get educated about the issue and start, you know figuring out through social media how you can form a broader organization to advance the cause. here's the good news if you take that approach, then even if you don't get to that office you've done a world of good, and if you do get to that office, it will be earned and you'll have a sense of what's important to you and what your moral compass is. so you'll be that much better as a congressman or a mayor or

councilman or what have you. so this is actually pretty good advice generally not just for public service because when i meet -- when i meet the -- [ applause ] if you look at the most successful business people, they are people who just love the thing they're doing.steve jobs loved computers. he loved design. so he's working on this and turns out you get so absorbed in it, you end up being pretty good at it. and so i always tell young people you know, don't wait until you get there to do something. you can do something right now. [ applause ]

all right. i have a young lady's turn. yeah. go ahead. right here. hold on. let's get a mike. >> okay. i'm lucy. i'm a student at hawkin, and i am wondering -- you've said that the republicans they've never really changed their opinion of what to do. it's always tax cuts, tax cuts and why do you think that they're always proposing tax cuts and never changing what they think we should do? >> well you know i -- [ laughter ] that's a good question. look and i want to be fair to their philosophy. i think they have a particular philosophy at least today. now keep in mind that every party changes over time. so so the person that i consider the greatest president of all time, a guy named abraham

lincoln was also the first republican president. there had been democrats who -- whose main goal was to block civil rights back in the '40s, '50s and '60s. so i want to be clear that our country works best when both parties are evolving and changing and over certain periods of time democrats have been stupid and republicans have had better ideas and vice versa. right now, at least, the core republican philosophy and belief is that the less government interferes with the marketplace the better off we all are. some believe that because just philosophically they think government is a source of coercion and interference and

telling you what to do and they believe that everybody as long as they're not hurting anybody everybody should be free to do exactly what they want. some of it has to do with an economic theory with capitalism and free market is great and government gets medals and gets involved in regulation, et cetera cetera is hurting economic growth. some believe that, look if i'm out there and making a whole lot of money it's my money and i shouldn't have to pay taxes to pay for somebody else's school or somebody else's road or what have you. so there are a bunch of reasons why i think they have the philosophy that they've got. >> i think the problem right now is that we live in such a complicated, big, global society

that what might be a sensible theory on paper doesn't always make sense in real life. so you may generally think, as i do that the market is the greatest source of productivity and -- and job creation and wealth creation in history but our history tells us that if there's a company that's out there making a lot of money, but also pouring a bunch of pollution into the water and it catches on fire and suddenly peemz can't, you know fish there anymore and people are getting sick that it makes sense for us to have some regulations that say, you know what? you can make your products and you can, you know, make a profit. that's great, but, you're kind of messing things up and so we're going to say you can't

just dump your pollution in the water. in theory you don't want government forcing itself in the interactions of people but if our history shows that racial minorities or a gay person is discriminated, we make a value judgment that says this is an exception. you can kind of do what you want, but when it comes to a hotel you can't decide you're not going to serve somebody of a particular racial or ethnic group. you've got a business. we don't want you to discriminate. that's a principle that constrains your freedom because we think that that is a value that we care about. so that's my philosophy you can

have principles and how are they working in the real world and are they fair and are they just? and are they generous and do they work? you have to base some ideas on facts and our history and i think sometimes that's not what happens in washington and you probably know somebody like that at school, you know? who it doesn't matter what happens. they keep on doing the same thing over and over again even though it doesn't work. einstein called that madness. last question -- i'm going to take two more questions. young people have gotten some good questions -- we'll get not as young a guy. i mean, still pretty young. >> all right, mr. president. ken carros. you speak about the dysfunction

in washington partly because people are trying to be reelected every so often. >> yeah. >> what about citizens united and overturning that and getting some limits on campaign spending so that we bring some reality back to this situation? >> there's no doubt that among advanced democracies we are unique in the length of our campaigns, the almost unlimited amounts of money that are now spent and i think it's bad for our democracy and i speak as somebody -- i speak as somebody who has raised a lot of money. >> i'm very good at it. i'm proud of the fact and part of the reason that i was really good at it is because we were the first sort of out of the gate to -- not the first, but we really refined using the

internet for small donations and to be able to pool a lot of ordinary folks resources to amplify our message, but i also got checks from wealthy people, too so it's not that i'm not good at it. i just don't think it's a good way for our democracy to work. first of all it makes life miserable on members of congress particularly those in competitive districts. there is no doubt that it has an impact on how legislation moves forward or doesn't move forward in congress. it's not straightforward, i'm writing the check and here's my position, but there is a reason why special interests and lobbyists have undue influence in washington and a lot of it has to do with the fund-raising they do and the degree to which it's spent on tv and the nature

of just the blitzkrieg. you guys here in ohio, you just feel it right? every election season you have to turn off the tv. it's depressing and it's all negative because we know the science has shown that people are more prone to believe the negative than the positive and it just degrades our democracy generally. here's the problem. citizens united was a supreme court ruling based on the first amendment so it can't be overturned by statute. it can be overturned by a new court or it can be overturned by a constitutional amendment and those are extraordinarily challenging processes. so i think we have to think of other creative ways to reduce the influence of money, given that in the short term we're not going to be able to overturn

citizens united. i think there are other ways for us to think creatively and we have to have a better debate about how we make this democracy and encourage participation. how we make our democracy better and encourage more participation. for example, the process of political gerrymander i think is damaging to congress. i don't think the insider should draw the lines and decide who their voters are because i think that it -- [ applause ] and democrats and republicans do this, and it's great for incumbents, but it means over time that people aren't competing for the center because they know that if they win a democratic primary or republican primary they won. so it pushes parties away from compromise in the senate. i think that -- i don't think

i've ever said this publicly, but i'll say this now. we shouldn't be making it harder to vote. we should be making it easier to vote. [ applause ] i've said that publicly before. so my justice department will be vigorous in trying to enforce voting rights. i gave a speech down at selma at the 50th anniversary that was incredibly moving for me and my daughters and the notion that this day and age we would be deliberately trying to restrict the franchise makes no sense and at the state and local levels that's -- you can push back against that and make sure that we're expanding the franchise, not restricting it. in australia and other countries there's mandatory voting. it would be transform tiff if everybody voted. that would counteract money more

than anything. if everybody voted then it would completely change the political map in this country because the people who tend not to vote are young. they're lower income. they're skewed more heavily toward immigrant groups and minority groups and they're often the folks who they're scratching and climbing to get into the middle class and they're working hard and there was a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls. we want to get them into the polls so that may not end up being a better strategy in the short term. long term, i think it would be fun to have a constitutional amendment process about how our financial system works but

realistically, given the requirements of their process that would be a long term proposition. all right. last question. it's a young lady's turn so all of the guys you have to put your hands down this young lady has had her hand up quite a bit. go ahead. >> hello, mr. president. my name is laura winfrey. no relation to oprah unfortunately. i'm in seventh grade and i attend school at citizens leadership a catted me. my question is if you could go back to the first day of your first term and the first day of your second term, what advice would you give yourself? >> that's a good question.

you know i -- i would have told myself to anticipate that because the recession was so bad and so tough for so many people that i was going to have to be more aggressive in explaining to the public how long it was going to take for the recovery to take place. although this is a challenge that we had when we first came in. when fdr came in during the great depression, it had been so bad for two, three years that

everybody understood all right. we've bottomed out and he can come in and propose, here's what we're going to do and there was huge support because there had already been a track record of failure by the previous administration. when we came in things were crashing but it hadn't yet shown up in the statistics and it would take another eight nine months before -- even a year before things really bottomed out and i think people were nervous and they were scared the stock market was plummeting, but people didn't know the depths of it like how many jobs we were losing and i might have done a better job in preparing people so they kind of knew what was coming and that might have helped explain why we needed to pass the recovery act or where we needed to invest in the auto industry, and i -- you know so

i think we should have done a better job on that front than we did, and i would have closed guantanamo on the first day. [ applause ] i didn't because at that time as you will recall we had a bipartisan agreement that it would be closed and my republican opponent had also said it should have been closed and i thought that we had enough consensus there that we could do it in a more deliberate fashion and the politics of it got tough and people got scared by the rhetoric around it, and once that set in then the path of least resistance was to leave it open even though it's not who we are as a country as used by terrorists around the world to help recruit jihadists. so instead, we've had to just

chip away at it year after year after year but i think in that first couple of weeks we could have done it quickly. i was thinking maybe i should have told myself to start dyeing my hair now before people noticed. [ laughter ] because by the -- by the year in i was too late. but that -- i'm just kidding. michelle thinks i look distinguished. let me just say it has been wonderful to be with you. i'll leave you with this thought. as discouraging as sometimes as the news is and as certainly discouraging the news out of washington is sometimes, it really is important for us to understand how well positioned we are for the future.

we get white house interns in every six months. wonderful young people and really inspiring because they're so smart clever and hard working and idealistic and i tell them if there was a time in history where you would want to be born and you were most likely to be healthy, have enough to eat, not be subject to violence and not be subject to discrimination and not be subject to sexual assault and not to be abused by your government, the time would actually be now and that's hard to imagine as with all of the terrible things that are happening around the world, but we've made enormous strides and we've made enormous progress. when i was at that bridge down in selma and you think about where we were 50 years ago and where we are now, as challenging

as -- and as troubling as what has happened in ferguson and in cleveland and in new york around some of those issues as much progress as we have nevertheless made, when you think about our economy and the fact that we had the best universities and the best workers and we still had the best scientific establishment and the most innovative companies. you know we've got all the cards. we really do. i mean life's tough and america's got problems and they're hard to solve and they're rarely solved overnight and progress has never been a straight line. it's always zigged and zagged and sometimes we go sideways and

sometimes you even go backward but our trajectory is towards greater fairness and more inclusiveness and more tolerance and more prosperity and i want people to feel encouraged by that because the longer i'm in this office the more proud i am of all of the incredible things the american people do every single day and our biggest enemy, i think is this corrosive cynicism that tells us we can't do things. there is nothing this countsry cannot do. there is nothing cleveland cannot do and that's because of you. thank you very much, everybody. mraurz mrauz [ applause ] [ applause ]

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ this weekend the c-span cities tour has partnered with mediacon to learn about the history and literary life of columbus, georgia. >> right here inside the museum

are the remains of the con fad rat iron clad, the css jackson. and those oval shapes that you see are the gun ports of the jackson and jackson is armed with six brook rifles. the particular brook rifle that we're firing today is one of the guns built specifically for the jackson. it was cast at the selma naval works in selma, alabama, and completed in january of 1865. the real claim to fame is directly connected to the fact that there are only four iron clads from the civil war that we can study right now and the jackson is right here and this is why this facility is here. it's first and foremost to tell the story of this particular iron clad and to show people that there are more than just one or two iron clads. there were many. >> watch all of our events from

columbus saturday at noon eastern on c-span2's book tv and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span3. well it's a big day for us here on the c-span networks. today marks the 36th anniversary of the u.s. house of representatives first being televised and c-span was there when then-representative al gore made that first speech. you can watch that first day and see congressman gore's comments online at c-span.org. c-span created by the cable tv industry and brought to you by your cable internet providers. he addressed the 2016 republican budget proposal saying he plans to have the budget on the house floor next week and will reflect a higher amount of overseas war funds. democratic leader nancy pelosi also talked about the republican budget plan and we begin with speaker boehner. >> the house continues to listen

to the american people and focus their priorities. next week we'll take up a balanced budget that puts the middle class first by expanding opportunity and not government. our budget is about the future and it addresses our spending problem and focuses on building an economy from the ground up. completing work on the budget is always one of the toughest jobs we have all year. the budget committee has done good work today and we expect the committee to approve our proposal, but there is overwhelming support in the kick for providing additional resources to protect our national security. in consultation with chairman price next week, the house will consider a rule that reflects those priorities. we have been and will continue to work on this issue. next, i'm encouraged by the progress our committees are making into permanently resolve the so-called dock fix. as you all know we've had to

patch these doctor payments 17 times over the last 11 years and i've been committed to finding a permanent solution to this problem. it's a way for washington to get rid of the gimmicks and make structural reform to make better health care for seniors and real savings for taxpayers and i'm encouraged by what we've seen and hope we can solve this problem once and for all. on benghazi, as i said on tuesday, secretary clinton must hand over her email serve tore a third-party arbiter. in terms of who that could be, chairman gowdy has discussed a few examples of former inspector general, a retired judge, a professional archivist. all of those choices would be fair and reasonable and we need the secretary to do the right

thing here so that we can get to the facts about what happened before during and after an attack on our people. lastly, let me congratulate my friend benjamin netanyahu on his party's victory this week. the prime minister recognizes the grave threats that we face from radical islam and from iran. that's what we talked about in the speech to congress and this is an opportunity to renew our commitment, to confront these threats and of course, to continue the strengthen the bond between israel and america. [ inaudible question ] >> our committees are continuing to work on that and i'm sure we'll see one soon. >> how soon?

>> we'll see one soon. >> will they cover 60 million people? [ inaudible question ] are you fearful that if you do something like this some of your members will revolt? this is parliamentary chick anry. >> listen, chairman price and the budget committee have done good work but in consultation with mr. price and the budget committee we agreed this morning that the rule will reflect a higher, overseas contingency account number to reflect the wishes of a large majority of our members. >> and you're not concerned about the parliamentary chicanery. >> on the medicare reform you mentioned, you laid out why that's a priority for you. you've approached this issue

differently than other big, fiscal issues that had deadlines and cliffs that are worth a lot of money in the past and can you explain why you've dealt directly with leader pelosi and why this is a different scenario. if we go back to last year, we can go for the policy for what a doctor payment schedule should look like. both the ways and means committee in the house and their colleagues over in the senate frankly came to an agreement on a new steadel for how we would pay doctors for medicare. the agreement was that the leadership would look to find appropriate offsets and then conversations with my democrat counterparts going back to early, mid-january we began to discuss some of these structural reforms that have been on everyone's list for some time and those conversations have

been productive. they continue. i'm not going to say we've got it all resolved yet, but i'm optimistic that we will get it resolved. >> is it a different approach or different strategy than what you used in the past? you haven't made this deal with your conference and then said take it or leave it to democrats. you've done it the opposite way. why have you done it? >> i just think there was an opportunity that presented itself to work in a bipartisan way to find the appropriate offsets and spending offsets and the door opened and i decided to walk in it. as simple as that. [ inaudible question ] >> well, i was -- i have to tell you i was a bit stunned by the

announcement. but i think i expect and the american people expect members of congress to be held to the highest, ethical standards. and i think mr. jacques made the decision and frankly i support the decision he made. i think there are ample controls in place to deal with the allegations that are involved here, but understand something. if someone will violate the rules, they're going to violate the rules and almost every case sooner or later, catches up to you. >> have you spoken to him? >> i have not. [ inaudible question ] >> the committees are continuing to do their work, continuing to have hearings and then when we have more to report we will.

thanks, everybody. all right. one more. >> given the president's victory in israel -- [ inaudible question ] >> well, i invited the prime minister of israel to come because we have grave threats that face our nation. he, as prime minister of a small country in the middle east, i thought, was in the perfect position to help describe that threat to the american people and for that matter to the rest of the world, and so i'm happy he came. i think he gave a forceful very clear speech and happy he came. [ inaudible question ] >> lukewarm. [ laughter ] >> are you xavier or kentucky for the tournament? >> xavier.

eventually, maybe, the other one. [ laughter ] good morning. good morning. i know you're there, i see you. i hear you breathing. good morning. since we saw each other last, we've had a break during that time. many of us went to selma for the 50th anniversary of the march. it was a beautiful commemoration. the president spoke so magnificently about what we were observing that day. it was so important for him to say the march is not over. we had so much more work to do.

and today house democrats are introducing a voter empowerment act. the voice and vote of every american must be heard in our democracy. we must pass the -- and strengthen the voting rights act. it's been a long time since last year zips the supreme court struck down parts of the vote offing rights act long overdue for us to correct that. mr. john lewis, mr. conyers and others today will be introducing the voter empowerment act. today, also, on the floor of the house, republicans are making it harder to vote and join a union. the attack on the ability to bring labor elections and regulations into the 21st century century. it is an outright attack not just on unions but on the right to organize.

right to organize has been such a fundamental principle for progress for america's working families. today we expect to see a republican budget. i don't know if that will be possible. they were supposed to go back in this morning. i don't know if they have. but as we have discussed before budget is supposed to be a statement of our national values. what is important to us as a nation is where we should be allocating our resources. instead we see a republican budget that isn't. they haven't passed one yet, as you no he. but their initial statement is we would describe as work harder for less. harder to buy home harder to send a child to college, harder to secure a dignified retirement. again, the same old thing, old warmed-over stew. that's all i can call it, same old taxes.

green light. green lights the massive romney-ryan tax windfalls to the ultra wealthy while forcing higher taxes on hard working families. so far what we're seeing, it ends -- for seniors it ends the medicare guarantee, turning medicare into a voucher program enforce its current seniors to pay more for preventive services. in terms of education, it forces deep education cuts for students and makes college less affordable. freezing for ten years the amount of a pell grant. for ten years. that really helps -- when i say the poorest. i don't mean poor in any way except economically needy kids to get a college education. it doesn't invest in the future. it takes over $700 billion over ten year

ten-year cuts in the domestic agenda, and even deeper cuts in investment needed to keep america number one. you've heard me say over and over again the best way to reduce the deficit -- nothing brings more money to the treasury than investments in education. investments in education, of course they're wonderful for people to reach their aspirations. a family can make no better investment than in the education of its children. and a country can make no better investment than in the education of its people. innovation begins in the classroom. education is essential to keeping america number one and yet this is a budget that is counter to that. that's why i was so pleased and some of you were here the other day whether we talked introducing the bank, the

message that we need bigger paychecks, better infrastructure, investments in education, so that every family in america, every hard working family in america can realize the american dream. pleased to answer any questions you may have. yes, ma'am. [ inaudible question ] were you concerned that the criticism could pull your members away from something like simpson-bowles, or an ability to find anything that's going on? >> he wasn't talking about simpson bowles. he talked about the framework of simpson bowles. now that barbara mikulski has said she's not running i think almost every member of the delegation is lookingality the race the race and i think all of them subscribe to strengthening medicare as they did in the affordable care act and

preserving social security prolonging the life of both of them. that would apply to mr. van holland, to congresswoman donna edwards, to mr. cummings, to mr. delaney, who else is running? everyone. everybody. but it is -- not everybody. but it is -- i think it's -- i have every confidence in this van holland. he's gone to the table bringing the values of our caucus to the negotiating table under any one of of these configurations and in every case, quite frankly, he has been the champion on these issues. but again, a value and -- that he shares with the other candidates who are running as well. >> madam leader, are you working directly with speaker boehner on the doc fix and how do you see things going forward? >> yes. well, you will see. it will come forward. i think we will put out some framework today. is that correct? i believe that it will be ready

to go forward today. then more particulars when we post the bill. yes, we've been working on that. it is something that has to happen. it's not a doc fix. it is a fix for america's seniors so that they can continue to see their doctor under medicare and some other priorities that will expire soon. we want it to be in advance of as you know the sgr, as you call the -- the sgr expires in just a matter of days. >> how has it been working with speaker boehner on this? >> i've always had a good rapport with the speaker. >> do that end, do you hope he does more for the future? >> of course, yes. >> coming to you initially -- >> you're both speaking at once. i'm sorry. what -- i'm sorry, what is your question? [ inaudible question ] >> that's your characterization

of what he does. but it is -- many of these issues have not been partisan ever. transportation and infrastructure have not been partisan issues. we've all been able to work together. all of us have a responsibility to try to find our common ground. in terms of getting the job done for the american people. what we can't find common ground you have to stand our ground but, nonetheless we have to try. and sometimes our differences are regional sometimes they're philosophical, sometimes they're generational. it's -- i call it the giant kaleidoscope. so you never know when you turn that dial who's going to be part of the formula for passing a bill. so we're always a resource to each other and hopefully we will continue that -- this will be a good example of how we go forward. >> back to the position with the documents here, do you anticipate the trouble that the republicans have had in the past 12 hours or so getting the budget out of committee because

of theseis and everything else. because of questions about things -- >> i have no idea. you have like about five hypotheticals in there. i have no idea. i think that we're on a path where everybody understands the seriousness of extending -- addressing the sgr the so-called doc fix so that seniors can have access to their doctors under medicare. that's very important and we understand that that has to happen. i don't have the faint s idea what's going on in the republican caucus right now. we don't know if they have the votes to pass a budget so i can't speak to what has an impact here or there. you have to go ask them. i'm just being very honest with you. i haven't the faintest idea. >> is there a scenario you guys would help them on a budget? >> on a budget? as i said, a budget is a

statement of values. this isn't about issues. this is about values. it is about the ethical responsibility we have to invest in the future for our country i would hope that we could come to agreement on different parts of it but i haven't seen any budget they've put forth in a long time that does anything more than take us back to ot failed economic policies under president bush that took us to the brink of a depression took us into a deep recession and now they want to go back to a budget that does exactly the same thing. yes, sir. >> madam leader new topic. on the isis fighters how would you characterize them? should they be called islamic jihadists or a variation of that has a religious connation ton connotation? >> terrorists. one word. terrorists. that's the word i would use. >> do you think the president is right in avoiding a certain tone for characterization? >> the president called them terrorists.

i agree with that characterization. >> spiker bain erspeaker boehner this week emfizedem emphasized his calls for hillary clinton to turn over the e-mails. are you satisfy with what she's turned over or do you have any concerns that outstanding records have been erased? >> i don't have a concern. i have a concern this isn't really about e-mails. it is about a partisan investigation by a select committee that's spent millions of dollars produced nothing. i think we're just going to see the ongoing attempt to investigate hillary clinton. whatever the subject. whether it's her e-mails or hs ter hair or whatever it has to be. that's what i'm concerned about just a politicization of an issue. and if the fact is -- the speaker says what her server should be turned over? i think that hillary clinton should not be treated any differently than any other

secretary of state. even if you just said in this century where technology has moved forward and this kind of subject would not come up about a server and about e-mails a number of years ago. communications, yes. but not this particular stamp on it. so i would say, let's see what other secretaries of state, what their practice is, what the status is of their server and maybe that would be an interesting contrast. [ inaudible question ] >> i think it is a mistake for those committees to continue a political investigation of hillary clinton, whatever, and that's what they seem to do. their organized purpose was supposed to be an investigation that produced some information already obtained by the intelligence committee which

made its report. it seems to me a big waste of taxpayer money. the -- again whatever -- whatever is determined here is about the future, as well as what happened in the past. but we're talking about the past. let's talk about at least since the year 2000. >> on the doc fix deal is your own caucus supportive of it? >> our caucus is very enthusiastic about ending this whole discussion. uncertainty about the sgr that has existed for years. for a long time our caucus has been ready to take the action that we're taking now, and we'll see when we see the final bill what their enthusiasm is for it. but i'm very proud of the work of our ranking members on the subject and i think right now -- of course, it's not finished

yet. so when it is finished people see what it is and then we'll see who wants to vote for it or not. >> i can get a quick question in. in the wake of aaron schock's resignation, do you feel there needs to be tighter ethics rules, ethics mandatory training for members of the house? now just staff has to be trained. >> i think it is important to -- i spent seven years on -- nobody spent seven years on the ethics committee. between the ethics committee and the intelligence committee, i couldn't utter a word about where i'd been or what i'd heard. yes, i think it would be important for members to have -- members and their families and their staff to have theette things ethics training and the responsibility is with the member. i'd like to think what happened in that particular case is so outrageous and so unusual that i

don't think it should trigger the ethics training. think we should just do the ethics training period, so everybody has a comfort level as to what is personal, what is official, what is political, that's really where lines are crossed. but i don't want to spend anymore time -- >> have you alerted a lot of new members there needs to be -- >> it's not a question of needs to be. i think it is just a question of it would be a good idea to do. not need to be because of fear of violation i think it is a great comfort level for people to have, just as i would like them to know more about jefferson's rules of the house and parliamentary procedure so they can be their most effective self, so when they set up their offices, they do so in a way that has the benefits of what i'm certain they must get in their orientation, we always

have that strong ethics piece what are the rules of the house again, separating political/personal/official. >> you mentioned comfort level. are you comfortable with members of the house -- >> i'm more concerned about money and politics and what that means to the ethics of our country. that's really what i'm more concerned about. if you want to talk about ethics, i think we should be talking about reform of the political system. not that i -- i'm not accusing anybody. i'm just saying in the public mind, in the public mind there's a skepticism, there is a cynicism that money plays too much of a role and if it isn't corrupting it certainly corroding of our democracy if most people think why should i even vote because money plays such a big role. so that is one place where i would place an emphasis to increase comfort level. not me, but does that matter and

the comfort level of the american people and the confidence that they have. thank you all very much. >> just one possible final question. >> yes, for you. >> -- they collect pd the tape of the two secret service agents that ran nat barricade. they can't find the tape. apparently there is a protocol that they destroy tapes after 72 hours. what do you make of this whole episode and this latest one? >> i want to support the secret service in protect being theing the president and executive branch as they do. i'm not into housekeeping and how they have their accountability. but i think even their leader has said that some of this needs to be addressed. but you no he more about what you just described than i do in terms of the facts. again, whatever it is, we want to have a secret service that protects our president whoever he or she may be, and that also

our candidates as we gear up for the election. thank you very much. >> we take you live now to just outside the cap capitol for a briefing with house budget committee ranking member chris van holland on the house republican budget plan. he'll be joined by other democratic budget committee members. the house budget committee passed its 2016 budget proposal today on a party line vote of 22-13. that approval followed yesterday's day-long mark-up session where republicans members couldn't come to an agreement in a late night -- in a late night hours on a defense spending amendment. the committee had to recess overnight. the house gop budget is expected to come to the house floor for debate next week. here's chris van holland. live coverage. >> i thank all of you very much for joining us. we're just coming from a meeting that representative kathy caster

and representative michelle richmond and i had with many of the organizations that represent americans across the country who are going to be hit hard by the republican budget that passed out of the budget committee this morning. you know, it wasn't that long ago -- in fact right after the last election -- that speaker boehner and the republican senate leader mitch mcconnell wrote in an op-ed piece that they were going to start looking out for the middle class. that's what they said. they were worried about wage stagnation. that's what they said that that he recognized people were working hard but feeling like they weren't getting ahead. that's what they said. problem is that their budget makes it much harder on working families around the country. in fact, it will make life more difficult. it will make it harder for

people to get ahead. and i think it is important to look at what it actually does. one of the things it does is greenlights, paves the way, for the romney-ryan tax cut plan for the very wealthy. again, that plan would drop the top tax rates for millionaires by a full one-third. so if you're already doing great, the republican budget is good for you. but everybody else gets those tax breaks at the expense of everybody else in the country. and the groups who are represented here today know what the impact will be. so it actually raises taxes on working families. they get rid of the higher education tax credit all together. gone. they get rid of the bump-up for the child tax credit. they get rid of the bump-up for the earned income tax credit. and of course, they wipe out all the affordable care act tax

credits that help people get affordable health care. so they make life much more difficult for working families. for students they actually cut from pell grants which help lots of students afford to go to college, and then they increase the cost of student loans for students by starting to charge interest for them in college. so students who are working hard to try to get education and are already saddled with big debt with get even bigger debts. and seniors prescription drug costs will go up immediately. they'll immediately have to pay more co-pays for preventive health services. and their medicare premiums will go up if the republicans are serious about really repealing all of the affordable care act. so again, a great budget if you're already on top of the economic ladder. but for everybody else in america, it's going to make it harder to get ahead. it's going to be more middle

class squeeze, more squeeze on working families, and i'm really pleased to be here with my colleagues and you're going to hear from kathy caster who's just been a great advocate on all these issues for working families. but also making sure that we invest in our future. and this republican budget disinvests in america's future. in our kids in our innovation, in modernizing our infrastructure. without further ado, kathy caster. >> thank you, chris. i want to thank ranking member van holland for hissed a video kaszcy on behalf of all american families and businesses. the economy's getting better but this republican budget puts the economic recovery at risk. look at what's happened just over the past few years with democratic leadership in the white house. unemployment is low. it's down about 5.5%. you've got low gas prices that

we know is going to put over $700 in the pockets of american families on average. and if you're lucky enough to be in the stock market, you're doing very well. people's retirement accounts are healthier. but the republican budget puts all of that at risk because it is a dark vision for the future that says to everyone across america that you're going to have to work harder for less. and here are a few examples because we even though unemployment is lower, we've got to do better with paychecks with take-home pay and higher wages. here are a few examples. when you think about how do we boost wages across america. i had an amendment last night to make sure that america keeps its number one position globally in medical research. it was an amendment that said it's time to answer the call of dr. francis collins at nih. the journal of american -- the american medical association

said congress, unless you act soon, asia -- the asian countries are going to eat our lunch. they're going to become the world leaders in medical research. the republicans rejected additional investments in medical research. we anticipate that that is going to cost us 1300 grants to our young talented scientists and it is going to put families more at risk at a time when we've got to keep working for the cures for cancer heart disease alzheimer's and those kind of conditions. here's another example. we're facing another cliff when it comes to transportation and infrastructure. at the end of may, we are going to run out of money andin the highway trust fund. although we hear lip service from our republican colleagues, oh we're for transportation and infrastructure, the republican budget has no plan whatsoever. we predict it will result in about a $190 billion cut over future years in how we invest in

transportation and infrastructure. in my home state of florida those are higher wage jobs. the engineers, the folks who build our roads and airports and seaports. the republicans will put us at greater risk for our economic future. another example, finally, is what they do to education. all across the country right now, there are high school students waiting to hear where they are accepted to college. that's going to come out over the next few weeks. but at the same time the republicans are offering a budget that is going to dash the hopes of students across this country because they cut the pell grant so drastically, cut the american opportunity tax credit, make it harder to get a student loan. so that's a recipe for a bleaker future. it's going to put the economic recovery at risk. they are going to ask people to work harder for less. it's a sham and it really is a

risk to america anticipate economic future. >> thank you. thank you for being there in the future all last night and into the morning. now we're going to hear from congresswoman michelle grisham who was an expert on health care issues long before she came to the congress. she headed up the new mexico department of health. she's going to talk about the impact of this budget on health care from medicare to medicaid, both of which take big hits in this budget. >> thank you. thank you, chris. i always have to start with lowering all the microphones or i got to find a way to raise my stature before the podium. good afternoon. i really appreciate that you're here because what you're hearing from us and you'll hear in a moment from other experts that are serving middle class families and working on effective policies that do really two things. one with be make sure the protections for middle class americans -- we're talking

seniors and kids and hard working families and the disabled -- but also in addition to those protections, make sure that we're investing so, for example, those seniors with their retirement income continue to spend in this economy in a way that's good for all of us and continues to bolster economic growth. this budget doesn't do any of that. in fact, over and over again, last night and early this morning, i really appreciate congressman van holland's reiterating that we hear from our republican colleagues that this is meant to protect those very people but if you're going to turn medicare into a voucher program for all future beneficiaries, if you're going to take the current medicare program, if you want to stay in that, you're going to pay more. if you're going to remove investments in medicare for additional services like preventative services, prescription drug protection by making sure that you have access to affordable prescription drugs, by removing the affordable care act investments in medicare you aren't

reshaping medicare, you are destroying medicare for current beneficiaries and for future beneficiaries. if you want to take a trillion dollars out of medicaid which protects older people, disabled adults, long term care enables them to stay part of their families and in that community, if you're going to take away that health care safety net from poor and sick children states like mine where we have the sickest population and the poorest population in the country, then you really aren't taking care of those folks. it's like saying that if you go out and get a sunburn that we believe that actually reduces the risks of getting skin cancer. it makes absolutely no sense. i'm really concerned as we debate about taxes and we have to wait and see what that reform would look like to actually defend the budget that we have which again devastates medicaid, asks states to use much less money and to be more -- to do that in a block grant, if you

will. all that means is the only opportunity states have is to actually take people off the medicaid rolls. and again to completely decimate medicare. then we're basically telling seniors and disabled adults and children that if they're duly eligible or they're on the medicare program that they're not going to be taxed in order to stay in any one of those services which means we don't have a health care infrastructure for any american moving forward. i'm actually ashamed that this is a budget that proposes those changes to those critical programs. i thank you very much, thank you for being here and yield back. >> all right. well, thank you. thanks for your passion on these issues issues. in a moment, we're gring inggoing to hear from each of three representatives from the more than 70 or 80 people who gathered just a short while ago to talk about the impact of this budget. as i turn it over i just want to stress one thing.

the republicans claim that their number one objective is to somehow reduce the deficit and balance the budget. our priority is to make sure that we get an economy moving and make sure people have good paying jobs. but the republican claim that they balance the budget, it just isn't so. not even close. if you followed the hearing the other day, you would realize that even republicans were looking pretty embarrassed about the fact that their budget would not pass muster with enron accounts. it wouldn't balance in the ten years without the affordable care act revenue in savings. at the same time they camelaim to be getting rid of the affordable care act. it wouldn't come close to balance if they included the more than $1 trillion in tax extenders, increased tax -- business tax cuts that they've tried to push for on the floor of the house.

then on top of that they claim a deficit reduction bonus based on fanphantom deficit reduction so in year ten it doesn't even come close, and anybody who tries to say that with a straight face deserves to have a reality check. here's the other point. while they're willing to make these deep cuts in education in our infrastructure investments, in science research, while they're willing to hit seniors on medicare, seniors and others on medicaid, while they hit the food and nutrition programs by $125 billion while they do all that, they don't close one special interest tax loophole. not one for the purpose of reducing the deficit. they don't get rid of the corporate jet tax break. they don't get of the ledge fund managers tax break. we according to the cbo, spend more on tax breaks every year

than on social security. the tax expenditures are higher every year $1.4 trillion a year compared to social security. that's more from tax expenditures, more than medicare, more than other parts of the budget. andy et they cut all these other things, put everybody else at risk, but won't take away one tax break. so we're really pleased to have representatives from groups who have their priorities straight the priorities that the american public has. we're going to hear from deb weinstein from the center of human needs. we're going to hear from joel packer for the committee for education funding. and we'll hear from stacy sanders from the medicare rights center. let's start with deb weinstein and thank you for your passion and advocacy for hard working americans and people struggling to make ends meet. >> thank you so much. i really appreciate this opportunity and everything that congressman van holland and his

colleagues here are standing for. you no he at the coalition on human needs, we watched with great interest this past fall when there was a lot of talk about concern about inequality concern about poverty, and it was voiced by republicans and democrats and we welcome that because there hadn't been a lot on the republican side it seemed like. but i guess that was then. that was talk, and their budget is not exactly action. it is a blueprint for the kind of action that they would like to take, and than action would make inequality worse, would make poverty worse. let me give just one example

that representative van holland mentioned. and this, this budget would allow the health to low income working families from the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit, it would allow the improvements in that to expire. and what that would do is leave 16 million people many of them children, either in poverty or more deeply in poverty. just that one failure. in addition the block granting and drastic cutting of food stamps, or s.n.a.p. the drop granting and drastic cutting of medicaid these are things that will hurt children will hurt working families, and will drive people further into poverty. throughout the budget cuts in

education, cuts in housing and so many other aspects. child care. the kinds of tools that help people work. those will be torn away at the same time that there will be these greater breaks for people at the top. inequality gets worse. poverty gets worse. if this budget were to be allowed to take effect. >> next we're gring to inggoing to hear from joel packer from the committee for education funding to talk about the impact of the budget on education issues. >> thank you. thanks for having me. my representative community for education funding is a national coalition of 116 education groups. the budget that the committee reported at today is really going to be devastating for students and children from preschool through higher education.

it does that in three major ways. first, in the pot of mrn that's called non-defense discretionary, that's the pot of money that the appropriations committee allocates each year it is where most education programs are funded along with many other important programs, it starts up by freezing that pot of money at the sequester level for fiscal year 2016 leaving no room for any needed investments. then much worse, in the next nine years, it slashes those funds by $759 billion. it is an average cut of 14%. 14% cut in the department of education would be almost $7 billion, $8 billion that would really be harmful for extra reading help, services for are children with disability college work study. second, it devastates the pell grant program. pell grant program has funding both on the discretionary side and the mandatory side. this budget completely eliminates all mandatory funding for pell grants.

$90 billion. that would wipe out funds that increase the maximum grant award. it would result in a cut in the maximum grant of $915, almost 16%. at a time when college costs are going up and students need help to be able to afford college. third, it also really hits student loans. it eliminates the interest subsidy on student loans for undergraduate students who have financial need. that's another almost $40 billion. that's going to increase the cost of loans on average by about $3,800. again, just made college more -- less affordable and more expensive. it has other cuts in the student loan program eliminating something called public service loan forgiveness that helps people who want to go in jobs like teaching and law enforcement and public service law to help them be able to pay their loans and make college affordable. overall, whether it's kid in head start or people in higher education, this budget cuts them from every side and we hope that

the congress rejects it as it moves forward. >> thank you joel. next right here from stacy sanders with the medicare rights center. thank you. >> thank you. great to be here today. i represent the medicare rights center. each year my organization works directly with over 1 1/2 million older adults, people with disabilities and family caregivers. people who rely on the medicare program for their basic health and economic security. this budget in the 50th anniversary year of medicare and medicaid really deeply cuts and undermines the promise of these programs. i think it is important to note that if this budget were enacted, it would have very significant and real world consequences for seniors and people with disabilities. this budget would introduce a voucher or premium support program in medicare essentially ending the guaranteed medicare benefit as we know it. that would likely increase costs

for a significant number of older adults and people with disabilities. this budget would cut the medicaid program by over $900 billion and introduce block grants which would inevitably lead to higher costs and less care for very frail older adults and people with disabilities who are trying to stay in their homes and communities. finally, by repealing the affordable care act this budget would take away health insurance for millions of americans who have been fet i haditted benefited from the marketplaces. my organization heard from 64 year-olds, 63 year-olds people desperately hanging on until they could become eligible for medicare. because of the aca, we don't get those calls anymore. this budget would return us back to that time where we hear from people who simply have no health insurance. in addition a repeal of the aca would increase prescription drug

costs for older people and people with disabilities, as well as increase costs for very important preventative services and screenings that really we need to give people access to so they can stay longer in their homes and their communities where they would like to be. thank you. >> so thank you all. we're happy to try and answer any questions that you have if there are any questions. >> are the democrats going to stand united and -- >> i'm confident that the democrats will oppose this budget because it is so out of step with the values and priorities of the country. >> all of them? >> you can never say for sure. but i can tell you that last year it was 100%. [ inaudible question sflchlt [ [ n ] >> right, what we saw last night and first time since i've been

on the committee that the budget committee didn't wrap up its work during the regular mark-up. this is because of a disagreement among republicans. what it shows is a lot of uncertainty about how we're going to provide funding for national security and national defense. they have a proposal that would do exactly what republicans on the budget committee have said that we should not do in years past. and democrats agree that we should not do. and that is use what's called the overseas contingency account, war savings account as a slush fund to pay for ongoing defense needs that are not related to overseas operations. and yet despite the fact that the committee's always taken a strong position on using the overseas fund as a slush fund, that's exactly what they've done in this budget, and in fact they

ended up with the of both worlds. they used it as a slush fund, but also did not provide the certainty of additional national security defense as the president does provide for it in his budget. the president's very straightforward. puts forward an increase in our national security investment but also investing in the future of the economy and the education in infrastructure, scientific research and those kind of things. we'll have to see how that plays out on the floor of the house and whether they try to amend that in the rules committee. [ inaudible question ] >> well, look we're going to explore all our options to try

to defeat a budget that is bad for america. it's bad in so many respects that it's hard to keep count of them all. we've gone over many of them today. but fundamentally what this does is make it harder for working americans to get ahead. makes it easy for folks who have made it to claim another round rf tax cuts. but for everybody else, it's a tough budget. so we will look at always to stop a budget that we think is out of step with american values. look, i mean we'll just look at all our options. we haven't -- we'll look at all our options going forward. [ inaudible question ]

>> well, we hope that's what we can do. right? i mean that's what the president's budget does in a very straightforward fashion. the president's budget increases our investment in defense by around 37$37 million. it increases our investment in education and important investments in powering our economy by a similar amount. so the president has laid out a framework for moving us ahead and making the investments that we need. that would be the template for an agreement going forward. [ inaudible question ] >> well, again republicans are right now themselves in total disarray as to what they want. i mean it is hard to negotiate

with republicans when republicans are fighting with each other. >> were you at all surprised that night? you looked surprised. >> there were a couple signs in the day, right? because we had to recess once earlier in the day because they had to go huddle on exactly the same issue that ended up stalling the mark-up. again, you've got this -- you've got to give credit to some of the republican members of the committee who wanted to stand for the principle that the committee on a biparts pennsylvania basis has stood for, which is you shouldn't play games with defense spending by

trying to push domestic defense -- basic defense budget needs into the overseas contingency account. using it as a slush fund. we were just reading back to republicans on the committee. their own report language saying that the committee should protect the integrity of the process and prevent us from playing those kind of budget games with defense spending. so it sends a really uncertain message to the country about where they are on defense spending. all right? thank you all very much for joining us. the house budget committee passed its 2016 budget proposal today on a party line vote of 22-13. the approval followed yesterday's day-long mark-up session where house members couldn't come to an agreement on a defense spending amendment.

committee had to recess overnight. house republican budget is expected to come to the house floor for debate next week. today marks the 36th anniversary of the u.s. house of representatives first pr being televitzedsed televised. c-span was there when representative al gore made his speech. c-span created by the cable tv industry, brought to you as a public service buy your local cable or satellite provider. this weekend the c-span cities tour has partnered with media com to learn about the history and literary life of columbus, georgia. >> right here inside the museum is remains of a confederate ironclad the "css jackson." this was an ironclad built here in columbus during the war. those oval shapes that you see are actually the gun ports of the "jackson." the "jackson" is armed with six

brook rifles. the particular brook rifle that we're firing today is one of the guns built specifically for the "jackson." it was cast at the selma naval works in selma, alabama and completed in january of 1865. the real claim to fame is directly connected to the fact that there are only four ironclads from the civil war that we can study right now. and the "jackson" is right here and this is why this facility is here. it's first and foremost to tell the story of this particular ironclad and to show people that there are more than just one or two ironclads. there were many. >> watch all of our events from columbus saturday, at noon eastern on c-span2's book tv. sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span3. next fcc chair tom wheeler

testifies on the new open internet rules before the house oversight committee. during questioning committee republicans asked whether the white house instructed commissioners to change direction on the open internet vote. from capitol hill, this is 2:40 minutes. >> good morning. the committee will come to order. the chair has authorized to declare a recess at any time. we're here today to examine the fcc's rule making process and the agency's commitment to transparency. three weeks ago the fcc approved new rules that will dramatically increase the regulation of the internet. problem is americans only got a chance to read them last week. last month chairman wheeler told members of congress that releasing the preliminary discussion draft ran contrary to "decades of precedent" at the

commission. in reality the current process making changes to internet rules is far less transparent than what occurred with the equally controversial media ownership rule changes in 2007. 2007, then-senator obama's quote "strongly requested the fcc put out any changes they intend to vote on in a new notice of proposed rule making." senator obama believed to do so -- to do otherwise would be "irresponsible." then chairman kevin martin responded to these concerns by releasing the draft text of the changes and inviting a four-week public comment period. in make being the text public chairman martin explained, "because of the intensely controversial nature of the proceeding, and my desire for an open and transparent process, i want to ensure that members of congress and the public have the opportunity to review my proposal prior to any commission

action." that didn't happen in this case. so to suggest that there is no precedent for this, that's just not true. chairman martin went even further. in december 2007 he testified before congress more than once about the rule changes. yet we invited commissioner wheeler to come before us and he refused. didn't have any problem meeting at the white house. but did have a problem coming before congress. in today's case, chairman wheeler did quite the opposite failed to provide this type of transparency. chairman wheeler did not make the rule public, did not invite public comment and declined to appear before this committee. we find that wholly unacceptable. further, it appears the fcc has been concealing certain communication from the public without legal basis. i want to put up a slide we'll refer to this later. there are several redactions to comments that were made -- or to requests made for freedom of information act experiences. we have that slide.

i guess not. i'm going to keep going. organizations that hold their government accountable depend on the foia process to gain insight into decision making. the fcc's track record at responding to requests is weak, at aboutest. fcc at the outset denies more than 40% of all requests. the documents fcc does produce contain a number of redactions including some that black out entire pages of text. this committee has received 1,600 pages of unredacted e-mail traffic previously provided in a highly redacted form through requests to various organizations including vice.com. today we will compare these communications to understand what legal justification mr. wheeler's agency used to prevent this information from becoming public. this addition we will examine the series of events resulting in the highly controversial vote to use title 2 to regulate internet like a public utility.

in may of 2014 the fcc issued a notice of proposed rule making concerning internet regulation that indicated broadband and mobile services would remain classified under title 1. public statements made by chairman wheeler and communications received by this committee demonstrate that this was the chairman's intent during this time period. in october 2014 and after the fcc's public comment period ended, media reports indicated that chairman wheeler intended to finalize a hybrid approach to that continued to classify broadband and mobile internet services under title 1. just days later president obama appeared on a youtube video calling for a radically different proposal. full title 2 reclassification. similar to a utility or a telephone company. e-mails provided the committee by the fcc suggest that this came as a major surprise to the fcc staff, including mr. wheeler. on january 7th, chairman wheeler announced the fcc would radically alter course and

reclassify broadband and mobile services under title 2. i'm sure much will be made about the 4 million comments that were made, but they were not made in the context of fully changing this to title 2. the fcc adopted the rule change on february 26th in a 3-2 vote. the lack of transparency surrounding the open internet rule making process leaves us with a lot of questions. this is a fact finding hearing. the committee remains committed -- this committee remains committed to ensuring full transparency across government. i look forward to hearing more from chairman wheeler today. with that i will now recognize the ranking member from maryland, mr. cummings for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. we are here today to discuss net neutrality, the rule, that was adopted last month by the fcc. there are strong opinions on all sides of this issue, no doubt about it. on one hand, internet service

providers, including comcast, at&t verizon and time warner oppose the rule and lobbied against it. they argued that additional regulation would increase fees, reduce investments, slow network upgrades, and reduce competition and innovation. on the other hand, supporters of this new rule contend that isps should not be allowed to discrimination based on content. they believe isps should be required to act like phone companies, controlling the pipes that make up the internet, but not what flows through them. consumers, social media entities and companies like facebook, netflix and google favor open internet policy because they do not want to be charged higher prices to provide their

services. the question before the committee is not which policy we may prefer but whether the process used by the fcc to adopt the rule was appropriate. republicans who oppose the new rule allege that president obama exerted undue influence on the process. but we have seen no evidence to support this allegation. instead instead, the evidence before the committee indicates that the process was thorough followed the appropriate guidelines, and benefited from a record number of public comments. i welcome chairman wheeler here today to discuss the process used by the fcc. i would like to make several points for the record. first, the fcc received more comments on this rule than any

other rule in this history. that is indeed very significant. as i understand it the fcc received about 4 million comments. this grassroots movement was highlighted when john oliver a popular late night talk show host encouraged his viewers to go on the fcc website to comment on the proposed rule. the number of comments was also extremely high because the fcc established a 60-day comment period, twice. twice. as long as required by the administrative procedures act. in addition, the president has a right to express his position on proposed rules. and he did so fortunately in this case. in november he made remarks in support of an open internet rule arguing that it is and i quote essential to the american

economy, end of quote. he said the fcc, "should create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality and ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper restricting what you can do or see online." when he gave this speech the president also ensured that his office submitted the appropriate ex parte filing. he did this through the national communications telecommunications and information agency, which is tasked with providing the fcc with information about the administration's position on policy matters. presidents routinely make their positions known to independent agencies regarding pending rules. president rayss reagan, george h.w.

bush clinton and george w. bush all expressed opinions on fcc regulations during their presidencies. in fact, for this net neutrality role rule, there were 750 ex parte filings from individuals public interest groups, lobbyists corporations and elected officials. all of whom had an opportunity to make their views known. finally, if the committee is going to examine the actions of chairman wheeler and his communications with supporters of the rule then we must also examine the actions of republican commissioner's pay, o'reilly and others who oppose the rule. multiple press accounts indicate that they have been working closely with republicans on and off -- on and off -- capitol hill to affect fcc's work, and we should review their actions with the same level of scrutiny. chairman wheeler, i want to thank you again for appearing before our committee today.

i look forward to your testimony. were that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank the gentleman. i'll hold the record open for five legislative days for any member who would like to submit a written days. we'll now recognize our witness the honorable thomas wheeler chairman of the federal communications committee. glad you could join us. pursuant to rules all witnesses will be sworn in before they testify. so if you will please rise and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you will give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> thank you. appreciate it. >> we normally ask for your testimony be limited to five minutes but we're very forgiving on this. we would appreciate your verbal comments. your entire written statement will be made part of the record. mr. wheeler. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. ranking member members of the

committee. i will take that hint as well as your forgiveness and try and skip through some early paragraphs here. i'm proud of the process that the commission ran to develop the open internet order. it was one of the most open and most transparent in commission history and the public's participation was unprecedented. last april i circulated a draft notice of proepzed rule making that included a set of open internet protections and also asked questions about the best way to achieve an open internet. the open internet n approximateprm adopted in may proposed a solution to the telecommunications act of 1996. it also specifically asked extensive questions as to whether title 2 of the communications act of 1934 would be a better solution.

a quick point. while historically some nprms just ask questions, during my chairmanship i've made it a policy to make draft nprm to my colleagues as specific proposals as o means to flag key concepts or commenters attention. i believe this is an important part in transparent rule making process. but let's be clear, the proposal is tentative not a final conclusion and the purpose is to fully test that concept. in this instance as in others it worked in the desired way to focus the debate. the process of open internet rule making was one of the most open and expansive processes the fcc has ever run. we heard from start-up, isps, a series of round tables. mr. cummings mentioned we heard from 140 different ex partes.

140 members of the cottage. we congress. we heard from president obama's administration. and in the formal submissions. but here i would like to be really clear. there were no secret instructions from the white house. i did not, as ceo of an independent agency feel only gate -- obligated to follow the president's recommendation. but i did feel obligated to treat it with the respect that it deserves just as i have treated with similar respect the input both pro and con from 140 senators and representatives. and most significantly has been pointed out we heard from 4 million americans. we listened and learned throughout this entire process. and we made our decision based on a tremendous public record. my initial proposal was to

reinstate the 2010 rules. the tentative conclusion put forth in the mprm suggested that the fcc could assure internet openness by applying a commercial reasonableness test. under section 706 to determine appropriate behavior of isps. as the process continued i listened to countless consumers and others around the country. i became concerned that the relatively untested commercially reasonable standard might be subsequently interpreted to mean that what was reason for isps commercial arrangements, not what was reasonable for consumers. that of course would be the wrong conclusion. and it was an outcome that was unacceptable. so that is why over the summer i began exploring how to utilize title 2 and its well-established just and reasonable standard. as previously indicated this is an approach on which we had

sought comment in the mprm and about which i had specifically spoken saying all approaches including title 2 were very much on the table for consideration. you have asked whether there were secret instructions from the white house. again, i repeat, the answer is no. now the question becomes whether the president's announcement on november 10th had an impacted on the open internet debate including at the fcc. of course it did. the push for title 2 had been hard and continuous from democratic members of congress. the president's weighing in to support their position gave the whole too late 2 issue new prominence. of course we had bhn been working on approaches to title 2 including combined title two section 706 solution for some time. the president's focus on title 2

put wind in the sails of everyone looking for strong open internet protection. it also encouraged those opposing any government involvement to for the fist time support legislation with bright line rules. and as i considered title 2, it became apparent that rather than being a monolith it was a very fluid concept. the record contained multiple approaches to the use of title 2. one was the title 2 section 706 hybrid approach that bifurcated internet service. another, the approach we ultimately chose used title 2 and section 706 but without bifurcation bifurcation. and another, the one the president supported was only title 2 without section 706. all of these were on the table prior to the president's statement. but let me be specific. we were exploring the viability of a bifurcated approach.

i was also considering using title 2 in a matter patterned after its application in the wireless voice industry. and i had from the out set indicated a straight title 2 was being considered. key consideration throughout the deliberation was the potential of any regulation on the capital formation necessary for the construction of broadband infrastructure. an interesting result of the president's statement was the absence of a reaction from the capital markets. when you talk about the impact of the president's statement, this was an important data point. resulting i believe from the president's position against rate regulation. it was, of course, the same goal that i had been looking to achieve from the outset. as we move to a conclusion, i was reemtded how it was not necessary to revoke all 48

section of title 2. after it was deemed pursuant to section 32 of the communications act. the congress and the commission in that act enabled a wireless voice business with hundreds of billions of dollars in investment and a record of innovation that makes it the best in the world. this is the model for the ultimate recommendation that i put forward to my colleagues. there were other industry data points that informed my thinking in the condition's analysis. one was the recognition of interconnection as an important issue. a topic not addressed by the president. and then my letter to verizon wireless about the announcement to limit unlimited data customers of the subscriber over a certain amount of data. a policy it ultimately reversed.

and particularity bidding and the overwhelming success of the spectrum auction at the end of 2014 and beginning of 2015 which show that investment in networks, even in the face of the potential classification of internet access under title two continued to flourish. other data points were wall street analysts and statements of the isps themselves. sprint t-mobile frontier and hundreds of small rural carriers said that they would continue to invest under this title two framework that we were developing. ultimately the collective finds of the public record influenced the evolution of my thinking. and the final conclusion that modern, light touch title two reclassification accompanied by section 706 provides the strongest foundation for open internet rules. using this authority we adopted as strong as and balanced protections that assure the rights of internet users to go

where they want. when they want. protecting the field is a level playing field for innovators and entrepreneurs and preserve those to invest in fast and competitive broadband networks. i stand ready to answer your questions. >> thank you. and i'll recognize myself for five minutes. chairman, did you or the fcc ever provide the white house the proposed rule prior to the final vote? >> no, sir. >> the comment period was open may 15th. how many times did you meet either at the white house or did the white house officials come meet with you? during that time. >> in total? >> yes. >> about any issue. i think we have shown you my calendar that has something like ten. >> june 11th with jason furman correct? >> you have the list sir. >> june 18th with jeffrey