it off when opponents of the government got engaged and we've heard a lot about china and we know the various back doors to the internet there that they tried to put in to regulate speech to control access to content and all of that. that's the government doing that. we know this country for many years operated under the fairness doctrine, that was the government trying to regulate political speech on the broadcast airwaves, it wasn't until president reagan's f.c.c. after a couple of court decision said it trips right up against the first amendment that president reagan's f.c.c. repealed the fairness doctrine, congress tried to put it back in place. what we should be about is a free and open internet. that's what we've had. that's what's allowed this incredible explosion of technology and innovation to take place. and it is not taking place because the government picked winners and losers, it's because engineers and scientists and technicians and innovators and entrepreneurs did that on the existing

internet. now along comes the government, the federal demune cases commission on a 3-2 partisan middle of the night sort of decision if you will, right over the holiday to say, we're going to seize control and regulate the internet. . although they tried to regulate the internet once before, but the court here in washington, d.c., said they lacked the authority. they had not proven they had failed to demonstrate that the -- they have the authority. so the court struck them down pretty clearly. in part because they relied on a statement of policy and the court said a statement of policy does not constitute statutorily mandated responsibilities. previously the f.c.c. ruled by the way that section 706 did not constitute an independent grant of authority and has not overruled that prior decision. that's important because section 706 is part of the foundation upon which they think they have this authority even though in a prior case they said that didn't

grant them independent grant of authority. regulating otherwise unregulated information services is not reasonably ancillary to the section 257 osama bin laden gation to issue reports on barriers to the provision information services. there are a number of issues here that bring us to the rule we have today on the congressional review act that would repeal the rule that the f.c.c. put in place at the end of the year and notified us on. why are we using congressional review act? it is a very specific, very narrow, very targeted bipartisan created process. the leader, current leader of the senate, harry reid, was an advocate and supporter of the congressional review process because it allows congress to step in when an agency has overstepped its bounds on a major rule and say, no. that was -- you don't have the authority or we disagree with the rule. so we chose this c.r.a. process to overturn this rule that a

partisan group of un-elected officials chose to enact. exceeding their authority. now, congress whether you are for net neutrality regulation under title 1 or title 2 or no title at all, you should not stand idly by when an agency exceeds the statutory authority. i believe ultimately this will be thrown out in court once its ripe for a court to review, as the court has slapped down the f.c.c. in the past. the long and short of it, though, is that in relying on section 706 they may have inadvertently opened the door for state regulation of the internet. because section 706 says that the f.c.c. and state commissions shall have certain authorities and goes on to explain that in the first title of that act. i don't think any of us here want that door to be opened, but the f.c.c. and its naked grab for power it does not have chose to base part of their decision

on section 706. now, i heard as i was coming over here recitation of my comments last night in the rules committee by my friend and colleague from colorado that these -- all the major companies support this or virtually all. gee whiz, they did this voluntarily at the f.c.c. come on, none of them will publicly admit to the fact that the f.c.c. had holding over their heads a title 2 proceeding that would have treated the internet as a common carrier, simple telephone service with highly regulated environment, and it's one of those choices either go with us with title 1, which is quote-unquote, light regulation, opens the door to government regulation for the first time of the internet, or we may come in after you on title 2. now, to back up that argument i would point out that there is an open proceeding at the moment on title 2. they have never closed their tight 28 proceeding. so -- their title 2 proceeding. so, come on, these companies

have a lot of other issues like mergers, anybody heard of those? and other things. i was regulated by the f.c.c. for 22 years as a license holder and broadcast station. the last thing you want to do is poke your regulator. when your regulator has you by your license or next merger, you can going to acquiesce to the lesser of two evils which is what happened here. mr. speaker and to the ladies and gentlemen of the house, i would encourage you to support this rule, it's narrow, it's defined, it's closed for a reason because the parliamentarians and others have told us basically there is no real way to amend this and carry out its lawful action. so in a rare instance this makes sense to have a closed rule. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back my time to you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: the gentleman from oregon mentioned kosher net and other sites that might want to

provide proprietary content. i want to be clear that this rule making and rule making process has nothing to do with proprietary networks. it refers to the internet. i own several patents with regard to internet technologies, in those as is common we describe the internet as an open-ended gateway network. to the extent there are thriving proprietary networks be that religiously affiliated or commercial, the f.c.c. is not talking about those with regard to this matter. mr. walden: would the gentleman yield? mr. polis: i would like to submit a record, court rejects suit over net neutrality rule. mr. walden: will the gentleman rule on the prior point? mr. polis: i'll be happy to discuss it on your time. i want to move on to the point. i will be happy to enter a colloquy with you on your time. the star tribune says court rejects suit over net neutrality rules. federal appeals court rejected a lawsuit by verizon. the challenge the federal government's communications

rules. what i want to point out is like many newspaper sites, this was -- cites, this was a decision between me and the newspaper about how i would get access. some newspapers want to charge for access. others don't. i was happy the "minneapolis star tribune" allowed me access because i wasn't about to pay. how do they pay for it? they have a couple ads in here. apparently bill mayor will be at miss particular lake hotel and casino. i won't be there. and then there's something called license to thrill, also at miss particular lake casino and hotel. i assume they did a study and found many of the viewers might be interested in miss particular lake. again it was their decision. the "minneapolis star tribune's" decision do we sell -- "the new york times" is starting to charge for access. i'm going to have to make do with the free portion. do i pay for the "wall street journal" online, it's worth every penny. it's hard to strike that

balance. what this body is considering by not having a net neutrality regime in place is add another party to this contract between me an the star tribune. it's not good enough, they are letting you access, there's also the provider. you know what? you can have the provider say, we are not going to serve up these ads. we are going to serve up our own. we are not going to give you access to the star tribune unless you buy our newspaper plus service for averpb extra $14.95 a month. you are changing the value chain in a way that's unprecedented and enormous value because you are putting them in parge of the whole internet of the providers and the bandwidth and pipelines. yes, they are important to have. and, yes, they need to have a return on investment. and, yes, they support the f.c.c. rules as a fair way to do that. would they rather have to have a reach and control the internet? sure, they would rather control all the ad space on every newspaper and every other

website. they know that's a reach. there is no serious market val identification that's given by investors or investment analysts in that scenario that would threaten and kill the very internet itself. that's why we need to have a free and open internet for all. to ensure there's not another party that comes in and steals the intellectual property and usage of others. that's exactly what this very reasonable f.c.c. rules have put in. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes again to the chairman of the subcommittee. mr. walden: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i just want to point out that back on kosher net, the federal communications basically singled that out and said no you can't as an internet service provider have that system. you can't even if you want to. i think that's different. as for the court decisions, the

gentleman referenced, i don't know where he's going on that, i understand the court said the time is not ripe yet for the appeal by verizon and metro p.c.s. on the internet rules. not ripe because the federal communications commission has not put these rules into the federal register because they haven't completed some of their due diligence apparently on the effects on business. another point, that will still be ripe to litigate later on. the other part i want to make is understand that while these rules promulgating i believe outside the authority of the f.c.c. apply to the internet service provider the pipes, if you will, they do not apply to the content providers at the other end. in other words, once you get on the freeway as we know the internet, you want to get out from the neighborhoods eventually. and so a lot of people go to a particular search site let's say, a search engine, and that search engine's making enormous decisions about where you end up

on the internet. those search engines and other providers like that, they are not under these rules at all. and i would suggest i'm not eager to have them under these rules, but i find it fascinating that they can block, they can tackle, they can hide, they can change their alag a them selves by the time you search for something, you may get moved from number one in your category to number 71 because they make some decision in their loga rhythm -- log rhythm. most of russ on the internet and we are a very powerful community when somebody misbehaves. generally the internet has been successful because misbehaviors have been punished by the consumers in an open and free marketplace effectively and quickly and much better than through a government regulatory regime. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia reserves. mr. woodall: could i yield myself 60 seconds.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: this team of folks with the best of intentions ending up with the tremendous burdens on small business, i have just been informed and would like to inform this body that the senate has passed h.r. 4, the house's repeal of the burdensome 1099 regulation requirement that obamacare by a vote of 87-12. the bill's on its way to the president for his signature. this represents a huge win for american small businesses. a huge win for the abolition of burdensome gft regulation and -- government regulation and the first official partial repeal of obamacare that will go to the president's desk and become law. i thank the chair. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i yield myself such time as i may consume. first, with regard to the 1099 closing, i think again we can apply this as a step forward for small business. many of us wish there could have been a different way of paying for t i did support it twice in

the last session of congress. while there is major winners and small businesses are, we needed to close the 1099 loophole. i'm glad we did. the losers under this are fern families making about $85,000 a year which will be stuck with a large republican tax increase. mr. speaker, with regard to net neutrality, it is indeed a brave new world that we face on the internet. and i have been an internet user since the early 1990's. my first company was an internet service provider. i have experience on that front. it is a very dynamism of the internet itself that brings its value to humanity and americans. that's why it's important to protect that under net neutrality and open internet provisions. another critical provision that's generally had support from across the aisle has been a transparency requirement. that would require broadband providers in foreign consumers about whether -- part of the issue has been e-- we only find

out about these things after the fact after accusations are made. we would like to know one of the reasons i oppose this is rule is ms. matsui offered an amendment that would increase consumer confidence and led to greater investment of brond bad that would have simple transparency with requirement to regard to this matter. net neutrality keeps the internet free and open. it's that simple. just as the postal service can't discriminate in delivering legal content, so, too, the internet should not discriminate in delivering legal content. proprietary network can work their will and the gentleman from oregon mentioned kosher net or people users that might only want certain access on their machines. they are empowered to do that under open internet regulations. they can have programs that can say, you know what, many parents do this, they want parental controls or block certain sites.

they can only have certain sites that are accessible and block down others. many people, they are empowered to do this not by their provider, no, they are empowered to do this by choosing a software and service that they use to be able to restrict the internet for them selves or for a minor that lives in their home. these decisions should not be made by large multinational corporations deciding which internet you have your own access to. . 70% of families choose between only one or two broadband providers. not the internet minus that too many americans could face if we don't encode open internet regulationings f. we want to retain that access, we need to make sure that the value of the internet and dynamism that's created by the content and application providers have unfettered access to consumers in america and across the world. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: at this time i'm pleased to yield four minutes to a thoughtful member of the energy and commerce committee, the gentleman from florida, mr. terns. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. stearns: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. let me just bring the attention to this side of the aisle that some of the issues you are talking about, transparency, moves into privacy. we hope in the near future we do have a privacy bill. but i think some of the things you are concerned about impacted with the privacy and not necessarily in this debate dealing with house resolution 37. as the former ranking member of the telecommunications technology subcommittee, both the ranking member joe barton and i have sent three letters to the f.c.c. chairman expressing our strong opposition to his plan to regulate the internet. in fact, i have introduced legislation the past two congresses to try to prevent the

implementation of the net neutrality rules and other members have supported us. so if there is a long record here, i would say to my colleague on that side of the aisle, of our side trying to pre vent the chairman of the f.c.c. from regulating the internet, he went so far as to step out and try to do it, there was a comcast case in april of 2010 decision, the court found that the f.c.c. failed to demonstrate it had ancillary authority under title 1. so under title 1 the courts ruled they did not have the authority to regulate internetanyahuwork management. i think the courts itself have crop brown-waited what mr. walden has indicated. so what you are arguing is against the court case that actually occurred. as far as the tent -- technicality that verizon was involved with, they'll continue the suit. as mr. walden pointed out, they'll continue to go forward. i would also mention a little

bit with the chairman, mr. walden's indicated dealing with the 706 rule. the f.c.c. claims it has authority to enact this under the 706 rule, the 1996 telecommunication act. i was one of the conferees on that act. they are using this as a way to advance telecommunication capability saying they have the authority. but they can't rely on 706 because as the agency has previously acknowledged, acknowledged them selves, section 706 is not an independent source of authority. because 706 talks because section 706 erects barriers to investment. the -- they stretch the authority under these provisions. i think between the comcast case and the interpretation that 706 -- of 706, they don't have any authority to do this. in a larger sense what we're

talking about is when the f.c.c. moves out and starts to regulate the internet that creates uncertainty in the economy, uncertainty to people who are investing vast sums of money for fiberoptics so they can spread broad bad -- broadband and heaven knows we don't need that in this economy, this uncertainty, so i think the f.c.c. was unwise just in terms of the economy for this uncertainty. it's been open and thriving for all these years and because of a deregulatory approach, if we step in and let the f.c.c. start to regulate the internet under title 1, it's going to create uncertainty. that's why verizon is moving forward and as others have pointed out, a lot of people are fearful of the f.c.c. that's why they won't say anything. as many of us know, lots of times when you're in a situation where you have an empowering authority up there that can regulate you, you don't want to get them upset

with you. you're delicate in you how move. the people are saying, basically, we're not going to say anything, but they're telling us on this side they cannot see any reason for the f.c.c. to start to regulate. there's no crisis for them to do this, the example used with the newspaper in minneapolis, it's not a crisis. the f.c.c. hangs its adoption of net neutrality rules on prevention of harm and i urge passage of this rule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: even if the rules are consistent with the d.c. circuit ruling in comcast versus the f.c.c., it fulfills the f.c.c.'s man tait from congress and works with a mandate to encourage broadband deployment by supporting innovation and investment among their orpe duties. last year, congress had tissue had a chance to -- congress had

a chance to -- for many high tech companies and broadband carriers, that would have put in statute a set of net neutrality rules and would have definitively through statute removed the threat of tite 28 reclassification. that was blocked by republicans in the house. so again, i think when mr. walden mentioned there were some folks on the broadband side that may have been coerced into supporting something fearing that there would be a threat of title 2 reclassification, it was the activities of republicans that specifically prevented the removal of that title 2 reclassification, and it is not seen as any serious regulatory overhang with regard to the valuation of stocks in that area because there's no effort to move forward with title 2 regulation. obviously, with regard to this matter, if it's creating

somehow this much controversy around what should be noncontroversial rules that enshrine into place the current free and open internet policies that have seldom been violated but we fear might be violated more in the future. if that's provoking this kind of discussion, you can imagine what type of discussion would ensue if there was a serious effort to reclassify under title 2. mr. stearns also mentioned that maybe the committee will begin work on what type of statutes we might have, certainly specifically i'm curious and i asked mr. walden yesterday if the committee would consider no blocking rules, would the consider -- committee consider transparency requirement, do they think they can do a better job than the f.c.c. and that this poddy with its vast knowledge of the internet and sr architecture would do a better job than the f.c.c., one thing i would like to see if if

we are talking about repealing the f.c.c.'s rules what is the work product of this body. test peel and replace, i think there's been acknowledgment, in fact mr. stearns mentioned that the committee might work on some of these areas, what is that proposed body of work. why are we not looking at repeal and replace? what are we replacing it with? is it similar to chairman waxman's bill of last year? can we do better? i'm skeptical but if the gentleman would like to advance the work product of his committee and come forward with a clear decision for what we'd be replacing it with, i'd be open to seeing if the work product of the committee is better than the work product of the f.c.c. with regard to this matter. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from fey is recognized. mr. woodall: we have no more speakers on our side if the gentleman is prepared to close, we are prepared to close.

mr. polis: we have no more speakers. the swer net has been of immense value to mankind, to america, to me personally and to all of us personally. it's contributed to our culture, to our economic advancement, to the flow of free ideas. we should not trade the freedom of the internet, the freedom of the internet as an open, superhighway, farrle to road controlled by -- -- for a toll road controlled by others. today's action short circuits that prsess -- process and imposes a shortsighted solution on what is a complex idea for imposing an intermet free to have government involvement. the f.c.c. order came close to

striking that balance, which is why it's supported by internet service providers and faith based organizations and others. i urge my colleagues to support an open internet by opposing the previous question and this rule and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: i yield myself such time as i may consume. there's a promo out these days for a new television show coming on about the c.i.a., it chronicles a fellow's first day on the job at the c.i.a., he walks in, he looks around herb can't believe the disarray he sees there. and his senior advisor there steps up and he says, son have you ever walked into a post office and said, my gosh, i've

stepped into the future? and the answer is no. the government is not the location where innovation thrives. they have this conversation today about how we need government regulation to protect the internet, mr. speaker, we need to protect the internet from government regulation. that's why we're here today with this underlying resolution. this f.c.c. proposal is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. to quote my friend from colorado, as he was quoting the investment banks, these official rules are around what is already being done in the private sector. it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. mr. speaker, it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist use authority that the f.c.c. does not have. it's interesting being down here today as my colleague from colorado talks about, all the big businesses that bought in and the investment banks that bought in.

i don't give two hoots that the big business or investment banks have bought in. we hear from this administration how they can help, how they can help to solve problems, problems that exist and apparently now problems that don't exist. if the authority does not exist they cannot with be allowed to regulate in this area. so we have a solution to a problem that doesn't exist using authority that doesn't exist. where does this leave us? i want to read to you, mr. speaker, from the f.c.c. order dated december 21 of last year. finally, we decline to apply our rules directly to coffee shops, bookstores, airlines and other entities that acquire their internet service from a broadband provider. though broadband providers that offer such services are subject to the rules we note that

addressing traffic is a legitimate network management purpose for these premise operators. thorget that does not exist and the f.c.c. says in its benevolence, in its benevolence, that at this time, it chooses, it chooses, mr. speaker, not to regulate the way that coffee shops, bookstores and airlines provide internet service to their customers. folks, this is the camel's nose under the tent. that's why we have to be vigilant. doesn't matter if we like the underlying rule, or if the authority does not exist, mr. speaker. we are obligated as one of three branches of government, we are obligated to step in where regulatory authority exceeds its bounds. the courts have looked at this decision and decided, as we have, that the f.c.c. does not have authority to act in this area. solution to a problem that doesn't exist. using authority that it doesn't

have. that starts to pave the way to regulate coffee shops, airlines and bookstores. mr. speaker, this is a simple rule for a simple bill. we've talked so much about 2,000-page bills with lots of hidden consequence we talked about section 1099 of the health care act now being repealed and passed now by the senate and going on to the president's desk. i want to read to you this bill in its spirity if you'll permit me the time. resolved by the senate and house of representatives in the united states in congress assembled that congress disapproves the rules committed by the federal communications commission in the matter of preserving internet and broadband practices and such rules shall have no force or effect. that's it. eight lines. no force or effect. mr. speaker, i urge strong support of my colleagues of this rule that will then bring to the floor h.j.res. 37 and

allow in its brevity its complete an total conversation. i yield back -- complete and total conversation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the the question is on the e chair lays before the house

the following communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. sir, i write to inform you that effective immediately i am resigning from the house

judiciary committee and will be taking a leave of absence from the house transportation and infrastructure committee to join the house committee on rules. signed, sincerely, tom reed, member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resignations are accepted. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, by direction of the house republican conference, i send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 202, resolved that the following named member be and is hereby elected to the following standing committee of the house of representatives. one, committee on rules, mr. reed. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resolution is agreed to, and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

the house will come to order. the house will come to order. members will take their conversations off the floor. the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida rise? ms. ros-lehtinen: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to express my appreciation to mark gauge of our foreign affairs committee staff for his guidance, his insight, and his counsel throughout the years. after a distinguished career in the house, which started with congressman solomon's office in 1981 is, as an intern, and five years as a political appointee

at the department of state, mark has decided to retire from government service. our committee will be losing an immense talent and dedicated public servant. someone driven to an unwavering commitment to doing what is right for our nation and by the members that he has served throughout the last three decades. mark's expertise and sharp wit will surely be missed. i wish mark a wonderful retirement with his lovely wife and their three terrific dogs. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? wide. -- without objection. without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. courtney: i rise to congratulate coach tim calhoun and the basketball team for their win last night. that is the third national championship under coach cal hewn who hails from the second congressional district of eastern connecticut. this was a remarkable year when

the season started they weren't on the top 68 by "sports illustrated." under the leadership of walker, three freshmen, and a sophomore they defied the odds, won 11 consecutive single elimination games over the last 20-odd days and prevailed last night against a great butler football team led by a great young coach. congratulations to coach cal hewn who is a great leader in the state -- calhoun who is a great leader in the state of connecticut. go huskies, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to give one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mr. lankford: i rise to discuss the debt we are dealing with as a nation. it is time to stop ignoring the debt problem we have in erkm. the budget will be released this morning is focused on solving our fiscal problems not scoring political points. key elements, fiscal responsibility. understanding this is not our money. it's owned by the american

people. finding common ground with the president's debt commission and bipartisan c.b.o. proposals. we have some areas that we have agreed and those areas are included. shocking as it may seem, conservatives also included practical solutions to solve our long-term systemic issues with entitlements and welfare. our focus was to protect programs working, encourage work for every person able to work, and set a course for future economic stability. it's also focused on cutting spending, raising taxes on americans to fund more government would be like a family running up a huge credit card bill and going to their boss and tell them they need a raise to pay off their credit card. their boss would say you don't need a race. you'll spend more. get your family on a budget and cut your spendings. that's what we must do. some in congress have already called this proposal extreme. i have to tell you, i agree. i think this budget is extreme. extremely responsible, extremely forward thinking, and extremely overdue. i yield back. .

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. despite the heated rhetoric over the fiscal year 2011 budget and the failure to responseably address our nation's $14 trillion debt, there's one simple truth we should all take away from this current budget standoff, washington can no longer not deal with the fiscal crisis. constitutionly, all spending bills must originate in the house. we passed a long-term spending bill that represents tough but necessary choices we must take. even if we all agree a program is efficient and needed we can't spend money we don't have. at a time when the federal government is borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we must be responsible stewards of the taxpayer dollar and ensure the long-term promises the commitment that government has

made to the american people is mutt and fulfilled. it's time that the senate leadership do what's right. we still have a government to run and cannot adequately deal with a 2012 budget if last year's business is left hanging in the wind. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: mr. speaker, the president says that he wants to cut the country's oil imports by one third over the next 10 years. well, that's fantastic and well-timed after the announcement of his re-election campaign yesterday. gasoline is up to $4 a gallon. americans don't want to hear what's going to happen 10 years from now. the president's answer to the energy crisis and $4 gasoline is to give money to brazil while at the same time stonewalling drilling in our gulf. why are we doing that? instead of propping up energy companies in brazil and letting them drill off their coast, let's keep jobs and energy in

america and drill off our coast and our own land. let's develop our own domestic energy instead of developing brazil's? are you in for that, mr. president? and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> to speak to the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in honor of our departed colleague, john adler of new jersey. mr. connolly: he was an honorable public servant who served 17 years in the new jersey state senate. and before that on the town council of cherry hill, new jersey. john brought a wealth of knowledge, legislative expertise but good humor, compassion and respect for his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. his bipartisanship, his compassion, his commitment to his community and especially to

his family will be sorely missed. our hearts go out to shelly, his wife, and his four children, at this difficult time. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> i thank the gentleman for yielding and wanted to address the house for one minute and to rrks my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kingston: i thank you, mr. speaker. and america is at a huge crossroads right now. we're in a situation for wherever -- whenever we spend $1, 40 cents of it is borrowed. our national debt is about 95% of our g.d.p. we are losing our edge as a global leader. it hurts our job creation. it smothers the private sector and it denies you and i of some of our basic freedoms because the bigger the government gets the smaller your personal freedom gets. that's why the budget that has

been introduced today is so worthy of a strong debate by both of us, both parties, that is. this is about the next generation, not about the next election, and i urge my democrat friend and my republican friends to come together and do the best thing for the united states of america. not just for partisan politics of the day. we are americans, we can do better, we can get this job done and we must get this job done. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida rise? ms. brown: i ask for one minute to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. brown: thank you, mr. speaker. today in the d.a. we had a hearing on how would the shutdown affect the veterans. you know, you can tell something about a country or organization as to how they spend their money. in december when we gave $700

billion tax breaks to the richest people in the world, then we worry two or three months on how to pay for the veterans' pension of the health care, it's unacceptable. it is unacceptable that we continue -- practice what i call reverse robin hood. robbing poor people and giving tax breaks to the american people. unacceptable, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the leader.

mr. poe: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to address the third front that the united states is engaged in, and i'm not talking about the war in libya. i'm talking about the war, the border war on our southern front. between the united states and mexico, the war with the narcoterrorist gangs that's coming into the united states daily, bringing their wears into this country. the secretary of homeland security, janet napolitano, recently said that the border now is better than it ever has been. i take issue with that comment. for a lot of reasons. one, i have been to the southern border of the united states, primarily in texas with

the border with mexico. been there numerous times. just recently got back from the border of arizona and mexico, and what i saw does not look like a secure border. of course, she said, it was better than it ever has been, but that's not the question. the question is, is the border of the united states secure? and the answer to that question, in my opinion, is no, it is not secure. let's talk about this issue, this issue's been around for a long time. there seems to be a lot said about it, but as my grandfather used to say, when all is said and done more is said than done. and the border between the united states and mexico is not secure. i'm not sure if it's better than it has been. in my visits to the border, it's not just the people in

mexico who live in concern and fear for their own safety about the narcoterrorists running up and down the border with automatic weapons but it's people on the american side as well. the national border patrol council, that's the group that represents the border patrol agents, recently made the comment, if the border was better now than it ever has been, agent brian terry would not have been brutally murdered by heavily armed mexican criminals operating over 13 miles inside the united states. that makes quite the point. just recently in the last 24 hours two americans that live in mexico but work in the united states and have worked in the united states for some years were legally crossing at a regular port of entry and they were gunned down in mexico while they were waiting to cross into the united states, two americans murdered.

of course, when an american is murdered in mexico, the chances of anybody in mexico being prosecuted are almost nonexistent. last year, 65 americans were murdered in mexico. i know of no case where anybody in mexico was held accountable for those crimes because the crimes are out of control in mexico. and to think that it does not affect the united states is living in never never land. the -- this map here -- i want to show some statistics about the border counties in texas with mexico. there are 14 border counties in texas that border mexico, and ever so often i will call the sheriffs of those 14 border counties and ask them this simple question -- how many people in your jail are foreign

nationals? i'm not asking the question, how many are legally or illegally in the united states? we can't ask that question. we -- and so recently two weeks ago i called the sheriffs, the 14 border sheriffs in texas and asked them that question -- how many people in your jail are foreign nationals charged with crimes? that would be a state misdemeanor or a felony crime. this does not include immigration violation. that's a whole different group of people. so how many people in your jail, not people charged with immigration violations, but just charged with cross-border crime, and the answer is 34% are foreign nationals. 34.5%, to be exact. now, think about that number. 34% of the people in a local jail are from foreign

countries, and they're not just from mexico. they're from all over. because everybody in the world knows if you can get into mexico you can get into the united states. you see, mexico doesn't protect its border any better than the united states does. so people all over the world go into mexico and they sneak across into the united states and in these border county jails 34% of those people are foreign nationals who have committed a crime and gotten caught and are locked up in local jails. now, to say that there is not a crime problem on the border is not reality because, you see, if the border was secure, and that is the federal government's job is to secure the border, if the border was secure you wouldn't have these people coming into the united states committing crimes because they couldn't get across, the ones that are illegally crossing into the united states. and these are not rich counties. these are poor counties. these counties don't have a lot

of revenue. and it's very difficult for these counties to house and feed and take care of the medical issues of cross-border crime, but they are saddled with that responsibility because the federal government does not protect the border of the united states in an adequate manner. so the question is -- is the border of the united states secure? and the answer to that question is, no, it is not. the proof is in the statistics in this one area. well, let's spread it out a little bit further. you know, let's assume that people -- let's talk about the federal prison system. now, the federal prison system is where people have been caught for a felony in the united states and tried in a federal court and sent to a federal penitentiary somewhere across the entire united states.

and the federal government keeps up with the number of people who are in federal penitentiaries serving time that are criminal aliens. now, that's a different term. foreign nationals, that term i use that term as a person from a foreign country legally or illegally in the united states. but the federal government keeps specific statistics on criminal aliens. a criminal alien is a person that is illegally in the united states, commits a crime, gets caught, gets convicted and goes to the federal penitentiary. so how many people we got like that in the united states? the latest statistics show that total number of criminal aliens in u.s. prisons is 27%. now, we're talking about some real numbers. we're talking about all the federal penitentiaries in the united states where people are charged with crimes and convicted. 27% of our population in the federal penal system are people

who are criminal aliens. now, if the border was secure people wouldn't come into the united states illegally, commit crimes, get caught, tried in federal courts and go to federal penitentiaries. and yet, over 1/4 of the people we house in the federal prison system are in that category. so the question is, is the border secure? and the answer is not, it is not secure. 1/4 of the people incarcerated in our prison system, in the federal prison system are called criminal aliens. doesn't sound like it's a very secure border to me if those people are able to come in to the united states. . let me give another scenario that occurs which is really frustrating. we have people who come into the united states. they commit crimes. they are foreign nationals. some are criminal aliens.

they commit crimes, they get convicted in a court somewhere in the united states, either a state court or a federal court. they are sent to the state penitentiary or the federal penitentiary while they are incarcerated. serving their time. the system works very well because i.c.e. comes in, puts a detainer on them for deportation. they have a deportation hearing so that as soon as they get out of the penitentiary they are supposed to be deported back to the country they came from. that's the way the system is supposed to work. it works like that sometimes but not all the time. because, you see, there are some countries who won't take back their crumbal aliens. what -- criminal aliens? what do you mean they won't take them back? their criminal aliens come into our country, they commit a crime, while incarcerated they are ordered to go back home as soon as they get out, and when we get ready to deport them back from where they came, their country says, don't send them

back to us. we don't want them. they got enough criminals of their own, i guess. they refuse to take back their criminal aliens. how many people are we talking about? the current number is, 140,000 of those people. 140,000 people from foreign countries committed crimes in the united states, ordered to be deported back, and their countries refuse to take them back. 140,000. so what happens to them? well, under our constitution we just can't keep them in jail after they served their time, so after six months where they are not deported after their time is served, they are released into the united states. because their country won't take them whack. who are those countries? -- back. who are those countries? there are a whole lot of them. the top five, you never guess this, but china is in the top five. our good buddies, the chinese, who own most of our debt, our great trading partners, they don't take back their criminal

aliens. other countries, cuba, vietnam, jamaica, and india. those are the top five nations that refuse to take back their criminal aliens after being convicted. so those 140,000 people continue to be our problem. because their countries don't take them back. if the border were secure, those people never would have gotten in the united states to begin with to commit crimes. now we are stuck with those individuals. we need to have a consequence for those countries that refuse to take their lawfully deported criminal aliens back. those countries should have some type of consequence for failure to take their lawfully deported individuals back. i'm not sure what that would be, but they certainly must -- we must consider all of our options, including if those countries receive any type of foreign aid, we shouldn't give them foreign aid. you don't get foreign aid if you don't take back your criminal aliens. those countries that don't take

-- get foreign aid, maybe we should -- all these countries do get visas except maybe cuba into the united states. maybe we should reconsider that. but it's a massive problem and the criminal justice system alone for the fact that the border remains insecure. unsecure. the border is a long way, just a texas border, from el paso down to brownsville. if you're not from texas you don't know how far that is. it's just a long way. it's the same distance as from new orleans to new york city. that's how long a border it is. and the entire southern border of the united states is 1,957 miles long. now we are talking about a lot of territory. so how much of that land is secure? well, recently richard santana who works for the homeland

security department says that the united states only has 129 miles of that 1,957 mile border that is secure. now, that doesn't seem like a very long amount, 129 miles is not very much of a border when you have 1,957 miles of that border that is not secure. take another organization, the g.a.o., that is the general accounting office. that is the group of people that keep up with all the statistics that we, members of congress, ask them to keep up with. and they have released a report talking about that one question. how secure is the southern border of the united states? and their answer is this, 44% of the border is considered secure. but really only 15% of the border is airtight. that means we'll catch you if you come across. 15% of this massive border.

so if 44% is somewhat secure, that means 56% of the border is controlled by somebody else. who controls that portion of the border? it's not the united states. it's not mexico. who controls 56% of our southern border? it seems like anybody who wants to cross controls it. and to my opinion primarily it's those narcoterrorists, those people who bring drugs into the united states, those violent drug cartels, who operate not only in mexico but other parts of the continent and including south america. so, we need to make sure that we talk about what is correct. and the people who live on the border, if you ask them, if go down there and just pick somebody out and you ask them whether it's in texas or arizona whether they feel secure on the border, and the ones i talked to

don't feel secure. now, recently last weekend, weekend before last i had the opportunity to go to arizona. i was a guest of the congresswoman gabby giffords' staff. gabby giffords as members of congress know has been working onboarder security issues for a long time. last year she sponsored a letter to the president, myself, and others co-signed it to put more national guards troops on the border. the president responded with some national guard troops on the boarder an she's worked on that issue. and before her tragic incident where she was shot, she and i had been talking about the fact that i invited her to texas to look at the texas border, and she had invited me to arizona to go meet with the people on the southern border of the -- of arizona. so last week i had the opportunity thanks to ms.

giffords' staff. i will say this about her staff, they are a tremendous group of individuals. highly impressed with how informed ms. giffords' staff was and appreciate the fact that they took me and part of my staff down there to see the way it is in arizona. but here's a map of arizona, and the portions of arizona where i was was in the southeastern portion of arizona over here, everybody's heard of tombstone, i was further south than tombstone, all the way to the border, and douglas, arizona, in the corner of the southwestern corner of arizona and next to new mexico. along that portion of the southern border of the united states, visiting primarily with the people in charge of border security, the border patrol, and the ranchers who live along the border.

let me talk about the ranchers first. one of those ranchers, mr. krince, a years ago was murdered on his ranch, apparently by illegals coming into the united states. he was gunned down and killed. the culprits that committed that crime have not been brought to justice. i met with other ranchers in the entire region and just asked them the question, tell me what it's like to live on the border of the united states and mexico as a ranch owner. and they went on forever and every and told me things i was just somewhat surprised about. how they feel like the border is wide open. that people cross across their ranches. people come in, they destroy property. they destroy their water lines. all of this costs money to the ranchers. of course they have to be the ones that pick up the bill for the destruction on their property. and they don't feel safe about the people that cross into the united states across their land.

they feel like that the federal government is really not -- has not protected them and their rights and seems to neglect them even though the border patrol, who i also met with, i believe is doing as good a job as they possibly can do. i want to make that clear. the border patrol is doing as good a job as they can do. at we will let them do as a nation. and they are trying to protect the border the best that they possibly can. so i talked to both groups. but in reality the people who live there are very concerned about their own safety. and the consequences they have to pay for people illegally coming into the united states. i heard something that was kind of surprising to me when illegals, not all, but when some come into the united states and they are captured by border patrol, some of them ask the question, are they in the ninth court or 10th court? i said what are they talking about the ninth court or 10th

court? what they are talking about is the ninth circuit court of appeals or the 10th circuit court of appeals. you see, the ninth circuit court of appeals, that is a federal appellate court, has jurisdiction that includes arizona but goes up to the new mexico border. so when illegals cross into the united states, near new mexico or the -- arizona, some of them ask the question, am i in the ninth court which would be in arizona or the 10th circuit court which is jurisdiction is new mexico? and the reason for that in my opinion, those two courts have different reputations about enforcing the rule of law on the border. and of course those that cross into the united states hope they are caught and the ninth circuit court of appeals would eventually have jurisdiction over their case, when in their perception it's a much more friendly court to folks who cross in illegally than the 10th

circuit. i thought that was interesting. they are also giving when they come into the united states and captured, some you will find a whole list of things and places they can go. the churches that give them sanctuary. places they can go for medical help. and they are given in a very organized way what they can do when they come into the united states. that's provided in some cases by the coyotees of that -- make money off of those immigrants who come into the united states because immigrants have to pay the coyote money. sometimes the coyotes and drug cartels work together because, you see, drugs and people are going north. and money and guns are going south. because you see mexico doesn't protect its border any better than the united states does. but in any event, while i was down there in the corner of arizona, i learned firsthand about the seriousness to the ranchers, the people who live on the land, their concerns about the fact that they believe that

the border is not secure. in reality they have to worry about their own safety on a daily basis. after visiting the corner, the southwestern corner, southeastern corner of arizona, we moved and traveled across interstate 10 to interstate 8 over here to st. louis -- an luis, arizona. -- san luis, arizona. across interstate 10 turns into interstate 8, comes across arizona into california, goes into yuma, arizona. i went down here into the southwestern corner to see what that border was like. now, coming across interstate 8, right here, interstate 8, we pulled off the side of the road

to the sonora national reserve. and that is a national reserve that the federal government controls. because i wanted to see the sonora national reserve. interesting enough, you get about a quarter mile, almost a half mile off interstate 8, right up who are, down by the sonora desert, and you come across this sign. this sign is facing toward mexico. so interstate 8 would be to this direction and mexico would be behind the sign. how far behind the sign? it's 80 miles to the mexican border. here's the big sign that says, traveling caution, smuggling and illegal immigration may be encountered in this area. so, it seems to me, that the federal government as answer to border security is warn people it is a smuggling and illegal immigration area. once again this sign is not on the border. this sign is 80 miles this side

of the border. so, what is the government saying? are they just ceding that entire portion of arizona to the drug cartels saying it's a smuggling area and you need to take care of yourself because we can't protect you? i don't know. but i was somewhat surprised to see that our federal government's answer to border security was to erect this sign and other signs that are similar to it. . and i don't believe that's the answer to border security. you would not need these. the texas department of public safety has issued some statistics regarding cross-border crime. i've already mentioned about the 34.5% of the people in local county jails on the border are foreign nationals.

but just since 2010, january of 2010, the texas department of public safety has identified 22 murders, 24 assaults, 15 shootings and five kidnappings, among other crimes, directly relating to spillover violence from mexico. now, sometimes we hear this comment, well, the violence in mexico isn't coming to the united states. the question is, is the crime from mexico coming to the united states? we've already shown that's occurring because 34% of the people in those local jails are committing crimes and they're foreign nationals. but also the violence is coming into the united states because of the statistics that i just gave you. and now we learn of another phenomena that's taking place and you don't hear much about it because the victims of these crimes don't say much about it. people who live in border towns, the populous border towns in mexico or in the

united states, rather, periodically would get somebody who would come to their front door or they'd get an email or a text from someone who says, we know your cousin who lives in mexico, and unless you pay us so much protection money your cousin in mexico is going to disappear. something to that effect. so we hear reports of that, extortion, on the american side of the border and this is primarily among hispanic americans. and what do they do? well, they may or may not report it. what they, i think, generally do is pay the extortion because they want their relative in mexico on the other side of the border to be safe. so we have that extortion racket taking place. and if the border were secure that certainly would not have occurred. so it concerns me that we have

that crime on the american side. going back to the southern border of arizona, i was asking the border patrol, who was very gracious and explained a lot of their operations to me, how do they bring drugs into the united states? and they said everywhere they can bring them into the united states. and one of the ways that they're using now is the concept of ultralights. an ultralight is for lack of a better description is a kite that has a motor on it and one person can fly that very low altitude and they bring in 200 or 300 pounds of drugs into the united states. they never land the ultra dills light into the united states. they just fly across from mexico into arizona and they drop their load 200, 300 pounds of drugs and then they fly back to mexico. then there's someone at a rendezvous point that picks up those drugs. i say that because the drug cartels are using every means necessary to exploit the open borders and do everything they

can to make sure that they bring in those drugs. and they will continue to do so. the border patrol is the agency that we have to protect the border of the united states. like i said, i think they're doing as good a job as we'll let them to do, but primarily the border patrol patrols the border up to about 25 or 35 miles inside the united states. that's their duty. that's their jurisdiction, the place they're supposed to protect the u.s. pass that 35 miles or so they don't patrol that. that's somebody else's responsibility. now, of course, the bad guys know that's the duty of the border patrol, to patrol that section of the border. so when people are smuggled into the united states, when drugs are smuggled into the united states, the goal is to get past the border patrol

demarcation line. because once you do that you're pretty much, in my opinion, home free to get into the united states with people or drugs. and so that is the area of their primary concern and it's certainly the area of the jurisdiction that they are trying to patrol the best they can. and i've asked the border patrol, tell me how you do this, and i think they use as many different means as they can to protect the border. they'll have vehicles that go up and down the border. they'll have border patrol agents behind the border. they'll have some use of the national guard behind the border with the use of electronic equipment to view what takes place on the border. and so they use that equipment but they don't have enough border patrol agents to be directly on the border so they have some on the border and some behind the border monitoring the activity of people coming into the united states and then they try to catch those that they can.

when i was visiting with one of the border patrol agents this is a photograph of one of their vehicles. it's a typical border patrol vehicle that patrols stuff near the border of the united states and mexico. now, mr. speaker, you notice that this vehicle has steel mesh on the windshield. it has steel mesh on the side windows. it has steel mesh even above the lights, the red lights on top. so i asked the border patrol agent that drives this vehicle, explain to me the steel encloseure you have on your vehicle. and he said, here's what happens. we will drive close to the border and as we get close to the border there are people on the other side of the border who when they see us they start throwing rocks at us. they throw them over the fence,

and if we don't have this protection these -- and they're not little bitty pebbles. these are rocks. they throw them over the fence and break the windshield, border patrol agents are injured. they do that for various reasons. one of those reasons is a diversion. they will try to divert the attention of a border patrol agent at one location so that other folks illegally can sneak in to the united states. now, we don't hear much about assault on border patrol agents except unless somebody is murdered which has occurred. but in the last couple of years assaults on border patrol agents who are -- from people who are illegally coming into the united states are 1,000 a year. 1,000 asalts on border patrol agents a year in the last couple of years by every means necessary, including the rock

throwers, who try to hurt border patrol agents. so you see the relentlessness of people who want to enter the united states. they violate the law, of course, by coming here illegally, but they'll continue to violate the law and take on our border patrol agents even by assaulting them so they can sneak in to the united states. so it seems to me, mr. speaker, that maybe we need to refocus on the primary mission of the federal government and its responsibility. the federal government does have the responsibility under the constitution to protect the american people, and the united states' government should do that. now, the united states protegs the borders of every -- protects the borders of every nation. we protect the border of afghanistan with pakistan. we're protecting the korean border between the two koreans. we protect the borders of other nations and we use our mirblet to do it.

-- military to do it. why don't we have the same resolve to protect the american border, both borders, the southern border and the northern border? because in my opinion we don't have the moral will to do so. and we should make sure that we understand that people and other people should understand you don't come to the united states without permission. it is the rule of law, you don't come to the united states without permission. now, we have to solve that immigration issue. that's a different issue. but you can't solve that issue until you solve the problem of people illegally coming to the united states. you know, we're getting everybody. we're getting the good, the bad and the ugly and right now we're getting a lot of bad and ugly crossing into the united states. so the rule of law must be enforced by the federal government. that is their duty. now, many of us do not believe the federal government has secured the border. obviously people in arizona don't feel that way or feel that way because they've passed

legislation to try to protect their own state using state law enforcement. of course, the federal government's answer to that was rather than help arizona, sue arizona, take them to court. you know, kind of like this sign. their answer to border security is sue states to try to protect themselves. why don't we deal in the reality and make sure that the border is secure and make sure that it's an area that's safe on both sides, you know, by securing our side we can protect the mexican side as well and those people. of course, we need to work with the mexican government to do so. they are our neighbors to the south. and while the united states now has decided to go into libya and spend $100 million, $200 million a week, i don't know, by bombing that country, maybe we should come back home and focus on national security in the united states and spend that money on border security and securing the united states at the border because it is not

secure in spite of what the secretary of homeland security has said. border patrol seems to me to have the mission to secure the border. and i will say again, they're doing as good as job as we'll let them do, but they cannot stop people from coming into the united states, although they're trying to do. when they have those vehicles going up and down the border, you know, that keeps people from going across. we have some fences in some appropriate areas. we don't have fencing in all areas but in some areas. they try to catch them if you can and that's the phrase that i think is our policy. catch them if you can. in other words, they cross into the united states, we see them, we try to catch them, but once we catch them they become our problem. and then we have to send them through the entire legal process, as we should, but they are our problem. they become our medical problem.

they become our prison problem if they go to prison if they committed a felony. and then we have to deal with them and then we have to try to get them back to the country they belong to in spite of those countries that refuse to take back criminal aliens. so it's catch 'em if you can. why don't we rethink that and prevent people from crossing into the united states? if our policy was border security, not behind the border security, but have security on the border then people coming up to the border wouldn't cross. why? because there are more boots on the ground. i think we should use whatever we have available. we should certainly use the border patrol. but also maybe we should use the national guard. we have a few national guard troops on the border, although they're being relieved, and their primary purpose is not to be on the border but behind the border watching cameras and watching people cross. that's great people crossing but once they cross into the united states they become our

problem. and we catch them if we can and send them back home if we can. so it would seem to me to be a better use of the national guard to put them on the border. i've introduced legislation to put 10,000 national guard troops on the 1,957-mile border between the united states and mexico. and put them on the border. to not allow people to cross into the united states. it is the federal government's responsibility of national security to protect the people so the federal government should pay for that and get the money out of the department of defense or somewhere. reappropriate money to have the national guard paid for. but put them under the supervision of the four-state governors so that the governors can control their own border and protect them from entering the united states unlawfully no matter who it is. i do not believe that we can say our border is secure when the general accounting office by their own statistics say that only 15% of the border is air tight.

that doesn't seem like a winning percentage to me. and when they say under best circumstances 44% partially secure. what does that mean? well, it's sort of secure but sort of not. but when you got 56% of the border is wide open spaces for anybody that wants to come back and forth, that is not protecting the dignity and the sovereignty of the united states. so it's long past time we quit talking about border security and actually secure the border from people coming into the united states without permission. everyone. and to answer that the crime doesn't occur in the united states. well, it does. not to mention the border county jails i just mentioned, the 27% that are in federal penitentiaries that are foreign nationals that are here illegally in the united states, but the drugs sold in the united states, those are primarily gangs that are working with the drug cartels

in mexico and colombia selling those drugs. so the insecurity of the border is something that all of us pay for. we pay for it in every way possible. whether it's with health care, whether it's with the education, we pay for it and the criminal justice system, americans pay and legal immigrants pay. you know, the united states has the greatest, the most liberal immigration policy in the world. we let more people into our country legally every year than any other country or any other country on its own. so we have to fix the immigration issue but we have to secure the border first. when all is said and tone, so far, more has been said and less has been done. i urge my members and fellow members of the house of representatives that we come back home, that we come back to the united states, and we think about the security or insecurity of our borders and make sure that the federal government under the

constitution fulfills its first obligation to protect americans. and that's just the way it is. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from new mexico, mr. pierce, for -- mr. pearce for 30 minutes. mr. pearce: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to address the house on issues that all of us may not be paying attention to but all of us should feel are

extraordinarily important. we have at this time in our nation's history eased into constitutional concerns for our future. those constitutional concerns arise in many different areas. for instance, you might not be aware of it, but there's a policy to establish different things which congress is supposed to establish, yet right now agencies are taking over those responsibilities, agencies that are taking away the role and rights of this congress. what that means to our people who vote, citizens who vote, that they will not have a voice any longer in the policy of cre the united states. they don't have access to unelected bureaucrats. they're not able to affect policy that comes from agencies , they can -- because they can't elect or unelect those

people, and we as the member os they have house of representatives an the senate are surrendering that capability to pass legislation. a good example is that the forest service is closing roads in forests across the country. they're declaring these roadless rules that put off limits much of our nation's forests. if you were to google the word forest and roadless, you would find all the articles deal with killing and doing away with timber jobs. the people in the agency have adopted an extreme point of view regarding jobs in this country and they do not want any timber to be harvested so they declare what sounds to be a friendly policy of roadless rules and the offshoot is that we have no timber industry. in new mexico alone, which i represent, we used to have 20,000 jobs in the timber

industry and today we have zero. as we look at the problems of this nation, we have to understand that the great pressure economically that we face is because our revenues to the government have diminished. that's because people are out of work, they're no longer receiving income and wages and not paying taxes on those. we're now at a deficit in our government, we're spending more than we bring in, and simultaneously, we're killing jobs in the forest. you can say, we like the wilderness. we like roadless rules. but our government has a process by which this body and the senate are supposed to declare the wilderness areas but instead the head of the forest service can declare that those areas are going to be roadless, they're then made into de facto wildernesses which shut down job bus even more, it shuts down your access. recently, the forest service

decided they would simply close 95% of the hila national forest offlimits because they're closing roads. if you're not able to backpack in 35 miles, you won't see this forests. when the law was passed, the forests were created for our enjoyment and to use the resources in the forest. by an agency that's allowed now to establish these rules without congressional oversight, you'd say, ah-ha, that's a constitutional thing we should be concerned about. simultaneous with that particular endeavor, then the wildlands, that's a policy recently announced by secretary salazar and secretary salazar has created the wildlands policy that allows them to create de facto builders -- wilderness in b.l.m. lands. they are a source of great

pruck of oil and gas. so for our voters, for the constituents, for the citizens of this country, they're seeing their gas prices now climb through $4 and we are limiting access to lands where that price could be diminished and lowered, but instead we have an agency that is killing the jobs and putting off limits the drilling for oil and gas in american soil. i saw the president of the united states just recently travel to brazil and encourage the oil and gas companies there that's creating offshore jobs and while he's encouraging the leaders of brazil to develop offshore production, he's killing offshore production here. there is a disconnect that is causing great problems in our country. those great problems in the country basically are this. our nation is faced with a $3.5 trillion budget and we're bringing in $2.2 trillion.

now you could not live that way in your home. you could not live with this kind of disparity in your home budget, and neither could the federal government. it doesn't work. it's not going to work. we are having to borrow the money when we run a deficit, and you can do the math here, $3.5 trillion spending, $2.2 trillion revenue, that's taxes paid by citizens and corporations, that's a deficit of $1.3 trillion, as that is accumulated it goes into our debt barrel. we owe $15 trillion worth of debt, that's the black barrel you can see there, since our nation's inception, since george washington, we accumulated $15 trillion in debt. but you can see the green sludge running over because we have more debt than we're willing to count in washington, so we just quit counting at $15

trillion. social security, medicare and medicaid are the green slunl that's poured over the side of the barrel. we don't declare it as debt anymore. we're going to pay it. we owe it. we have made promises about it. we just don't talk about it. it's so uncomfortable, it's so large, that's $202 trillion that we owe. we call that now the fiscal gap, that's the difference between what we are bringing in and what we owe. $202 trillion. that's 100 years' worth of revenue. 100 years to pay off what we have made promises for. the u.s. government is making promises for things that it cannot do. it is paying out money it does not have and it's doning it all on credit. now the credit itself would be alarming enough, except now there's a small wrinkle that's developing here also. if you were running this sort of deficit and debt in your home, your banker would begin

to come to you and knock on the door and say, we need to visit, this is not sustainable. it's not workable. our banker is called china and japan, they buy treasury bills and those treasury bills are then the way our government borrows money to fund the deficit. as you have seen in the cre recent problems in japan, japan will not be buying treasury bills from us any time in the near future. china twice in the last year has knocked on the door and said, we really are alarmed at what you're doing here. we're alarmed at this situation. we're alarmed that you are taking on more debt than you can pay out ever, ever, and we're afraid your currency is not going to sustain itself. when the premier of china recently visited in the white house about three weeks ago, you might have heard him say, maybe you missed it, but you might have heard him say that

we're concerned about the currency. now as they are concerned about the currency, then they do what your banker would do to you they simply say we're not going to lend you anymore money. we are not going to do this anymore. then we're in real trouble. our government again working outside the constitution is printing money to make up the difference for what we can't buy overseas. so the federal reserve is in the process of buying the debt for the u.s. the federal reserve, we give -- we here in washington give the federal reserve money and then they turn around and lend the money back on this hand. that would be cool if you could do it for long, and we all dream of a situation where we have an unlimited supply of money coming to us where we can lend it here and boar reit here and that's what we're doing to ourselves. this entire sequence, then, is

made complete if you look at the chart in the upper right-hand corner and we see that the whole game fails. just as the soviet union collapsed economically, president reagan viewed that if he could cause them to spend more than they brought in, he could collapse their economy. president reagan assisted and helped with the rest of the world the collapsing of the soviet economy and the ultimate collapse of that entire country, the breakup of the soviet union, and now then we are doing it to ourselves. we're making those promises that we cannot keep. we're killing jobs that should not be killed on behalf of roadless rules and on wilderness and we're accomplishing the funding of a government by the federal reserve which has basically no oversight by congress. so as you -- so as you as citizens and taxpayers contemplate what that means for you, when the government prints money, it begins to devalue the

currency that you have in your pocket. if you have $100 in your pocket an the government prints $2.6 trillion, let's say, then the government -- the money in your pocket becomes worthless. -- worth less. that is, we haven't created more wealth in the country, all we've created is more paper money. like in the monopoly game, when you get more and more properties. you know that's monopoly. this has become monopoly money that our government is doing here. so the -- you would notice if you're watching, that the price of crude is going up, both in this nation and worldwide. in fact, many of the disruptions across in other countries, egypt, libya, other countries in africa, those disruptions were caused by the shortages of crude and people were suddenly finding that the cost of food was outside their reach. all of us are going to demonstrate in the streets when we're not able to feed our kids.

and that's what's happening there. the price of food is escalating because they're doing the same thing. they're living on borrowed money, on money that's no longer available, so they begin to print it. you're seeing the price of gasoline rise to $4 a gallon, not because gasoline is more to you today than yesterday, it's that the dollars in your pocket are worth less. vegetables to you have no greater value today than yesterday, it's just the dollars in your pocket have less value so it takes more of them to buy the food. the price of gold and silver are going up, skyrocketing, that's not because silver is used for any more manufacturing today than last week or the week before, it's because the dollars in your pocket have become worth less because we're doing this. because we're spending almost twice what we make. because we have a deficit each year of over $1 trillion, it's going into an accumulated debt

that we owe long term and to solve the problem, our government is printing money. now you could object to it, but you can't object to anyone that listens which takes you can back to the constitution. the constitution is very clear on who should create the money and the value of money, but congress ceded that authority away and when it ceded that authority away, they gave away the responsibility, then we have no control over it. there's no process by which i can ask mr. bernanke, please don't keep buying this debt. this is taking away savings accounts for our seniors. this is taking away the ability for families to make ends meet. this printing of money is sustaining a problem that is not sustainable and it's making believe, it's making believe that we can make it work and just passing the buck down the road one more week, one more month, one more year.

the real sadness is that if we began to do the things within our reach, if we simply began to allow the cutting of timber, and i do not diminish the need to protect our environment one bit, i don't think we should clear cut, i don't think that the spotted owl should be allowed to go extinct but i do believe that we should create jobs and simultaneously protect our environment and simultaneously protect the species. it's a false choice that we've been given the last 30 or 40 years that says you've got to give up the jobs in order to protect the species. that's management of our entire country for single species. i think that's a mistake. that mistake is playing out here as we transport, we export jobs overseas that traditionally would have been here. in this country. oil and gas production is one. timber production is another. if you read the quote above me,

daniel webster, in the wall above us said, let us develop the resources of this land. that's a quote that is here on the wall of this house. and visualizing earlier in our period that our great resources are there to be developed and that is what will make us jobs, that is what will make us be able to have homes, be able to move into new forms of transportation, whatever this country has done has been available because we had jobs and we had economic status in the country. and yet some believe that that economy should be diminish and given away around the world. i don't believe that we should average our standard of living down to the rest of the world. i believe that we should average the rest of the world's standard of living up toward ours. but if we were simply to create jobs, then a magic thing happenings. it's not magic at all but every person that comes off of unemployment then does not receive these government

checks. instead they're down here making a wage and paying taxes. so every time we hire one more person incrementally we decrease the amount that our government is spending, but we increase the amount that our government is taking in. and so employment, the creation of jobs, is not sort of a random possibility for us. it is an be a slut necessity if we were to avoid this breakup of our economy that's projecting down the road because of the way that we're living now. the constitution is the agreement between the people and the government. a our founding fathers came from europe where they were living under monarchies. our founding fathers came from europe where they had seen the excesses, they've seen the monarchies rule every single aspect of their life. when they got to this country they were fearful of a government that was too strong, so they visualized this contract called our

constitution between the people and the government. the purpose of that contract was to keep the government in check, to keep the government's powers limited and small and to increase the powers of the individual. that gave us the liberties that we have so well trumpeted and used as a guiding light for the rest of the world. liberty and freedom are the great assets of this country. it's not our wealth. it's not the houses that we live in. it's the ability to choose for ourself, and that's what our founding fathers wanted to protect in this contract called the constitution, and that is what right now in washington agencies are walking past that constitution as if it has no meaning. when it has no meaning, the individual, the voter, the person who just goes to work every day begins to have less

and less rights and the government begins to take more rights away from them. we see an alarming case in the issue of libya. now, i don't support colonel gaddafi at all in his reign, in his service, but i do wonder about a nation that will step aside from the rule of law and take the fight to libya. we have in this country an act called the war powers act which describes circumstances that say, um, there are issues when a president might be able to commit troops, but our constitution doesn't quite give him the right without congressional approval but we're going to allow it in certain instances and then he can come back to congress for approval. just last week we heard the administration, secretary clinton came and addressed

members of this body, and secretary clinton said that they had fully complied with the war powers act. now, that's untrue because there are three great definite requirements for the war powers act in this -- we are not facing any of those. there were no u.s. soldiers that were attacked. he simply, the president said, with all respect, said this country is different. well, this country is different because we have a rule of law and we have a constitution and we abide by it and we transport freedom. when we begin to walk away from that freedom then we walk away from the essence of the country. he committed troops from the u.s. into actions in libya with no clear and apparent reason, with no constitutional basis for doing it. and even the rule of law was simply ignored. if they were using the war powers agreement, which secretary clinton said that they were, in order to justify this action, then the war

powers act actually says that they should come to congress within 60 to 90 days. 60 days under one circumstance but we could extend it for another 30. she said they have no intention of coming for 60-day authority, that they are well within their right to accomplish the actions. so by itself it would be alarming. but when you put it into context of agencies who are willing to create de facto wilderness in the rural areas of our forests, the agencies that are willing to say we are going to create wild lands, that is de facto wilderness without congressional approval in the b.l.m., and now we're going to go to war without complying with the constitution or with the laws that are on the books of the land, now, then, that should be an alarming trend no matter which party you're in. now that's about america and the essential agreement between the people and the government

called the constitution. the rule of law is what differentiates this country from other countries. the rule of law is what protects the rights of citizens. the rule of law is the essence of what made this nation great because the government cannot come in and take private property from individual citizens. they can't just go out on their own and begin to make rules. and yet that's what we're finding is happening at an alarming trend right now. the downside to all of that is economic. you can say, well, i'm not much interested in all that constitution and stuff and the founding fathers. that might be possible, but you cannot ignore what is going on in the personal lives of individuals right now struggling with the economic situation that is cast on them by decades of spending in washington that is beyond our ability to sustain.

if we're to look at this debt, this $15 trillion in the barrel, it's instructive for us to consider how that debt originated. you could take the time from george washington up to president bush, and we accumulated in that -- george bush ii, you can say that we basically accrued about $5 trillion in that hole period of time from george washington up until president bush ii was sworn in. president bush ii, with the war in afghanistan and iraq, katrina, those problems, ran up about $5 trillion in his time in office. so almost the equivalent in eight years what we had done from the founding of the country. but then in the year -- in the 2 1/2 years since president obama came in we've now bumped it up another $5 trillion. so we see that this filling of

the debt barrel is now accumulating at a much more rapid pace. it simply means our economy is going to fail at a period closer to us, not run away from us. and all the while americans are saying, how does that constitution affect this? the constitution affects that because we're seeing different industries simply sent to other countries because it's too hard to do business in this country any more. we make it against the law. we make the regulations too high. we make the circumstances too difficult. people would say, now, in what ways do we make the circumstances too difficult? one way that we should be creating jobs right now would be the medical field. baby boomers are moving to retirement. retirement is a very expensive age in anyone's life. and retirees are very expensive for governments to attend to. so baby boomers are moving to

that area very quickly. they should be demanding tremendous amounts of medical service. and yet we find that those jobs that should be created in the medical field are frozen in place, unable to move forward because of uncertainty. and so rational people would say, what uncertainty? that then leads us to another chart that shows the ability -- the ability of government to make life more complex. this is the medical system now since the passage of obamacare, since the passage of that 2,200-page bill. it created new agencies, new institutions. you can consider yourself at one end of the chart and your physician at the other end and you have to make your way through and touch the appropriate agencies before you get to see your doctor. now, this is the reason this

chart would cause anyone to sink back in horror and say that's not what i wanted, i just wanted to check up to see if i'm ok with my local doctor. it is this chart that is then creating uncertainty in the minds of the health care field and they're saying, we're not sure how this chart affects us so we're simply not going to get into that new line of work. we're not going to expand and put money into research to create those jobs in the medical field because we have to go through so many pieces of this equation and we're just going to let it sort itself out. this is always the problem with government. government will build in processes that simply just can't be overcome. and so this country, which has been the source of so many good medical inventions and medical jobs, this country that has been that source now is being burdened down with regulatory agencies that simply say we're going to impose this in your

life, and companies are saying, ok, we are just going to wait it out. other companies say we have to lay off people. we have 9.5% unemployment, 8%, whatever it is today, we've got unemployment. we need people to work. we're running a deficit because we're spending more than we're bringing in. the last thing we need to do is put more people on welfare and unemployment and put them out of a job, and yet people in new mexico, i'm hearing employers say, well, we got to cut employees to get down below the caps required in this bill. so people are voluntarily terminating employees to comply with some aspect of this bill to say if you have more than this then you have to jump through different hoops. so we have to in many ways our government, again, is creating the distress. it is -- it is man-created distress, it is government-created distress that is causing this $2.2 trillion. this is the root of the

problems we face economically. as our government is then spending more than it brings in, as it kills jobs so that jobs -- so that we are bringing in even less so that we are driving more people into welfare, the government has to print more money, the money in your pocket becomes worth less, the uncertainty in our nation increases and uncertainty causes, again, business owners to say, huh, don't believe i'll create jobs right now. i'm afraid they're going to go up on my taxes to try to make this balance. when the government creates that mood on the part of employers, then they simply stop the creation of jobs and that's what we find going on. you would say, well, uncertainty is not that really a big of a deal for a company and i would simply ask you, do you put money in the stock market when you aren't pretty certain you are going to get a return? if you think it's the roll of the dice to put your savings in the stock market you would do

that very hesitatingly. well, companies are doing the same thing. they don't want to pour money into a venture and then have something regulated in on them to have the taxes go up, to have it made where they can't get their money back, and so companies are making the same decision that you would make personally. now, recently the president complained about, oh, six weeks ago that companies are hording cash. he said it as an accusation. it is a true thing, that companies have tremendous amounts of cash right now but they're afraid because of the regulatory environment, they're afraid because of the prospect of taxes, they're afraid because of the prospect of new regulations to put money into industries and so, therefore, jobs are being frozen again by the actions of our government. two things would cause this situation to begin to balance. number one is not raising the taxes but lowering the taxes. there's a truism that says when

you increase taxes you kill jobs and when you decrease taxes you create jobs. and so it's counterintuitive that if we want to increase the $2.2 trillion and lower the $3.5 trillion then we need to lower taxes to where there's more certainty that people can say, i'll invest in that, i'm pretty sure i have enough money for incomes year's tax bill, i'm sure i have the money in the bank to buy this new equipment to hire another person. and on the other side, then, the regulations have to match also. a friend of mine in artesia, new mexico, said to a group asking, what does it take to create a job -- there's all this speculation in washington about what do we -- what does it take to create a job he says, i'll tell you what it takes to create a job. he has a company that runs bulldozers. he said it takes $340,000 to

create a job. that's what it takes to buy a bulldozer. and i have to have a pickup, so basically $400,000 i can put a new employee on. as we tax away money from businesses, then they have -- it takes longer to accumulate the $340,000. it takes longer for jobs to be created when we tax that money away that will cause mr. sweatt not to hire a new worker as soon as he would otherwise. the bigger thing is if the government passes a new regulatory frame worg that is similar to this, the regula toir framework alarms him and he says, i can't make my way through that government regulation, i believe i'm not going to do it. those two aspects are creating the great imbalance here between jobs and our economy. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. mr. pearce: those can be balanced and should be for the sake of our future. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate passed h.r. 4, cited as the comprehensive taxpayer protection and subsidy tax of 2011.

the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from d.c., ms. holmes norton for 30 minutes. ms. norton: thank you, mr. speaker. i come to the floor because in

a very real sense, i feel surrounded, mr. speaker. i was sent to congress like every other member to attend to the business of the nation. but in fact i have been surrounded. i've been surrounded by the new house majority. who have decided to spend huge amounts of time in the most autocratic fashion, trying to deprive the district of columbia of its self-governing rights. mr. speaker, congress delegated home rule to the district of columbia in 1974.

before that time, the district of columbia had no mayor, city council, was ruled from washington without any democracy. that was mostly the work of southern democrats. whose reasons were, among others, but most definitely racial. what is happening today is not the work of southern democrats. it is the work of the new republican majority. i am pulled off of the nation's business day after day after day because of yet another zinger from republicans to intrude into the local affairs and local spending of the district of columbia. i had to write the president

and majority leader reid today cautioning them that the district must not be used as a bargaining chip in the present battle over federal funding. federal budgets. under way here. the latest intrusion is hard to bear. the district has decided to spend its local funds among other things on abortions for poor women. dozens upon dozens of jurisdictions do that. no federal funds, funds raised by the taxpayer of the district of columbia. what does that have to do with the federal budget? what does that have to do with overspending or deficit here? that has to do with somebody's,

some majority's ideological obsession with placing their autocratic desires on a jurisdiction that did not elect them, cannot put them out, the very definition of an autocracy. so they pick on the jurisdiction that has no senators and throw us into the pot because the far right social conservatives here who want something, something in this c.r., so give us the district of columbia. you can't have us. who do you think you are? the residents of the district of columbia are free and equal citizens. we will not be traded off like

we were slaves or one colony that can be thrown in by those who don't care. we care. so whether it is the other body or this body, or for that matter the president of the united states, get your hands off of a local fund for the district of columbia. you didn't raise a penny of it. we'll spend it the way we darn please and especially in this battle, which has to do with your deficit spending, we have a budget that is balanced. and why should that budget be over here in the first place? our budget was approved last year. it came here and was approved by the house and the senate.

before the lame duck. and yet last year's d.c. budget is still here and we are now sitting on the possibility that when the federal government which now looks like it's stupid enough to close down because the republicans won't take the best deal anybody has had in the history of this body for what they wanted, that it looks like they're going to shut down the federal government and the american people will be shocked to know that would mean that the local government of the district of columbia, which is not in this fight, will be shut down too. this has gone much too far. it's one thing to start the session with your first act being to strip the district of columbia of its vote in the

committee of the whole, although two courts have said that vote is constitutional. then to move on to intrusion after intrusion, reinsert riders that we just got out, riders that have nothing to do with any member of this body except me, who represents the citizens of the district of columbia. a rider that would increase h.i.v. aids in the district of columbia by keeping the city from using its own funds to fund needle exchange. thousands upon thousands of jurisdictions have driven down their aids rate this way, we have the highest aids rate in the united states only because the congress of the united states has killed, i use these words advisedly, killed men, women, and children in the district of columbia by keeping

the district for 10 years from using needle exchange. so that aids would spread throughout the city. so we have a higher aids rate than baltimore, than new york, than detroit. than los angeles. because of the wishes of the congress of the united states is responsive to nobody in the district of columbia. they move to abortion, and if it wasn't enough to keep us from using our own local funds in this budget as they still hope to do, they put us in h.r. 3, h.r. 3 is a bill. and instead of a rider which lasts one year, they would

permanently keep the district from spending its own funds on abortions for poor women. this is a majority that does not even want the federal government in federal matter. what are they doing in the business of a local jurisdiction. what kind of tea party republicans are these who just added to the deficit by voting $300 million for private schools in the district of columbia, adding to the deficit in our -- and not paid for. how do you explain that back home? we didn't ask for these vouchers. nobody even consulted with public officials in the district of columbia before they put that voucher bill on. -- on the floor last week. that's the kind of contempt

this majority has for the residents of the district of columbia. we're going to fight back each and every time and we're going to say to this administration and to the senate, don't give in, don't give us away. because they want a chit and they decided that chit is the district of columbia. i went to the rules committee from the very beginning when shutdown looks like it was going to occur. i said, this is our money. we need to end this fight, we all agree on that but federal spending, federal deficit, not deficit from the district of columbia, let us have a portion here that says the district can spend its own local money for the rest of the year.

i don't think that there is a single american citizen that would have said that we shouldn't be able to spend our own local money for the rest of this year. rules committee turned a deaf ear and so we've had shutdown after shutdown and the only reason the district of columbia is open is because the federal government hasn't shut down. now it looks like these people are going to shut it down anyway because the tea party republicans have tied the hands of the speaker behind his very back and taken him prisoner. look, don't take us prisoner with him. we don't have to deal with that fight. imagine what it would mean to shut down a big city in america and especially since that big city is the nation's capital. imagine what we look like to the world that we even shut down the nation's capital.

when the federal government was shut down. don't do it. don't shut the federal government down. speaker boehner himself said that it would cost the government more to shut it down than keep it open. but if you do shut it down, for goodness -- for goodness' sake, keep the district of columbia open. that's what speaker boehner did when the federal government shut down, kept the district of columbia open after the first time because it shut down several times. because he recognized you can't do that to a big city. very complex mechanism, you simply can't shut it down and expect that it can keep on moving. it's a terrible thing to have h.r. 3 on the floor in the first place. that would strip women of their -- of vital portion of their reproductive rights. but it will also go after the

insurers and make it almost impossible for a woman to get wholesale insurance, comprehensive insurance because the insurer would almost surely have to exclude abortion. what kind of a place is this? i thought that the new majority came to town on a bandwagon that said, let's create jobs. where's the jobs bill? it's your battle. it's not ours. to pull us into your battles is tanned mount to what bullies -- tantamount to what bullies do in the schoolyard. somebody is watching the fight or is passing by, they just get pulled into the fight. we are not even onlookers.

we simply are not in it. it's as if republicans have a -- had a meeting. how many things that we haven't done can we do to the district of columbia, and how many things that we have done can we do? well, they introduced a gun bill. the courts have already found the new gun legislation, the district had to pass new legislation, before it sounded constitutional. they introduced a new one that would say you could carry guns in the streets of the nation's capital and conceal them as well. how would you like 20 million visitors to see people walking around with guns that you can see? what do you think that means for the many official delegations who frequent the

streets of the district of columbia? there have been so many things that the republicans have thought of to do. i need to sit down and consider is there anything they haven't thought of to do. one thing that occurs to me to show you how deep is their contempt for democracy in the district of columbia when they put the district of columbia in their bill that goes after women and their insurers nationwide, they tucked us in there, too, to make sure we could never spend money, local money for abortions for poor women. i mentioned that earlier. so, of course, as you might imagine, since mine was the only district named in the bill

that i would ask to testify. denied. excuse given, well, the democrats already had their witness. i asked for common courtesy, the right to be heard on a section of the bill that involved my district. somebody else needed to speak for the democrats as the minority witness on the bill itself. if they looked for every attempt, every occasion to deny us democracy, they also look for every occasion to deny the member who represents the city the right that i am due simply as a courtesy, as a colleague. nothing is more precious to

americans than the right to spend their local funds the way they want to. i thought that the new tea party house republicans would be the first on -- to understand that. remember what we're talking about. we're talking about local funds of a local jurisdiction. time and again the republicans use the fact that our budget comes here in order to attach in the most undemocratic fashion, vouchers is an example of a pet project of the speaker, so that gets priority on coming to the floor. now, understand that the district is the only jurisdiction that has ever had federally funded private vouchers, that was wholesale resentment and demonstrations against that when it was first put on our city.

ultimately we made some compromises. we let the bill go past two years. it's due. the obama administration said anybody who is still in private school can remain until they graduate. you can never compromise enough with the house republicans. now, they want it all over again. they want to restart it. i particularly resent the voucher bill because the district of columbia is the only jurisdiction that has allowed public charter schools separate from our public schools to flourish. almost half of our children are educated in these independent, publicly accountable charter schools. you go to the jurisdiction of virtually every member of this house, you will find that their local school board or their state school authorities have

kept charters out and kept them from growing. we let them in as a whole new matter and they flourished. i have a poignant student from the charter schools, at the service academies. we have terrific charter schools. we have a latin charter school. we have eight kip charter schools. those are the top of the mark public schools. i don't know what we can do. we will ask to claim that our public schools are what they should be. in fact, our public schools have improved because of competition from the charter schools. and that's the competition you want because the charter school and the public school are competing for the same dollar. the private schools are funned

out of a -- funded out of a separate pot. now, a budget resolution comes out today and it would trade off perhaps the most valuable education program the city has ever had for this voucher program which is unpaid for and to never pass the house. so they wanted in next year's bill -- and this is how they do it. they take d.c. tag which congress in the most bipartisan fashion passed because the district of columbia does not have a state university system where you can go to any one of usually dozens of colleges. so it funds youngsters to go to other states. it has increased college attendance in the district of columbia -- doubled college attendance in the district of columbia. in order to get a decent job in the district of columbia,

because we are the upscale nation's capital you need some college, and yet what the budget resolution from mr. ryan does is to trade off the few for the many. he would make the program means tested. that defeats the whole point. by sending us to the public colleges -- our students to the public colleges of other states, we're trying to replicate what is available as a right in the states regardless of income. so if you're rich or poor, if you live in maryland, virginia, ohio or california, you go to the state university. if it were means tested, of course, it would means that almost many, many of the students could not go. after all, they have to go out of the district of columbia

simply to take advantage of the program in the first place. that -- and it pays only for tuition. they have to pay for their room and board and for their food. if they had to -- if it's means tested, then, of course, what you're doing is killing the program. somebody had to sit down and think that one up, and they thought it up as a way to pay for vouchers we never asked for. neither i nor any other public official in the district of columbia was consulted about. we're tired of it. we are depending on the senate to be a bull wart against madness. we see it in the move to shut down the government. no, they don't want to shut down the government. but they don't have control over their own people. they have no discipline on the

other side of the aisle. there's no democracy there. they let a few members who are the most extreme slice of america decide what their whole caucus could do. could i ask how much time i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman has eight minutes remaining. ms. norton: we simply will not be hostages to the new house majority. if you can't get what you want on this floor when you control it, don't put it on the district of columbia. you should be able because of your majority to do what you want to do. we are not the repository for every pet idea that you sometimes dare not put on the

house floor, and that's what we have become. we have hoped that the new majority would focus on the nation's business, what it said it wanted to do. it has gone -- it hasn't focused when it comes to the deficit on the nation's business, although it's spending -- it's taking food out of the mouths of children in the process. but at least that's a focus on national business. the average american would ask those who voted to increase the deficit by $300 million last year for private schools in the district of columbia why in the world did you do that, why did you want to give them this? i tell you why. it was the pet idea of the

speaker and they don't dare put a voucher bill on the floor. the way to do it we wouldn't have to coerce anybody. we say, we have vouchers available. let's have competitive grants. anyone who wants vouchers can have them. you can pay for them. that's how we do things in the federal government. why didn't they do that? they didn't do that because there have been referendum after referendum in the united states and not one private school voucher referendum has been won by private school voucher proponents. you go home and you tell any american that you are spending federal money for private schools, now you'll get your

head handed to you. that's how it was when these referendum ran its course. imagine now when the republicans are cutting billions of dollars from every public school -- public school district in the united states, imagine how it looks when they're spending money for private school vouchers on a district that never asked for it and doesn't want it because it's somebody's pet project. take your pet project and you know what you can do with them. do that with them and don't do them here in the district of columbia. we asked the majority to stop your obsession with one jurisdiction, the district of columbia, we ask you if you shut down the federal

government, for goodness sakes, don't shut down one of america's big cities at a city on which you depend greatly. many of you live here. many of the services of the federal government are taken care of by the district of columbia. this is not something you want to do to the nation's capital. it makes us look idiotic to the world at large. i want to go back to doing the nation's business. i don't want to be taken off of that business every other day because some republican or some republican majority has decided to do something undemocratic to the district i represent. i put forward an amendment that would get rid of the issue of who gets shut down when the federal government gets shut

down once and for all. it simply says, look, when the federal government shuts down, if the district of columbia budget is over here an it's gone through the process the district of columbia can spend its own local funds. remember, virtually every dime of the budget that comes over here was raised in the district of columbia. it should be over here in the first place. i had a budget autonomy bill. last session. that until the very last moment was going to get through this house. and the senate. it is the very essence of no democracy that somebody's own taxes that they raised in their own local jurisdiction would be subject to somebody else who didn't have anything to do with

raising a cent of those taxes. that is what happens to the district of columbia. when the d.c. of -- when the district of columbia's budget comes here they don't dare change anything that the complicated local budget of the district of columbia. that's very complicated, you can throw everything out of kilter. essentially they don't bother with the budget. they spend all of their time seeing what they can attach to the budget, substantive, legal matters that have no place in an appropriation in the first place and have no place in somebody else's budget above all. mr. speaker, part of the problem may be that some members either do not know because they are new or have forgotten, either because for

four years of democratic control these issues didn't come up or because they want to forget, i come to the floor this afternoon to implore you, i shall in the let you regret. we will make sure this in your home district they know you are attending not to the business of that district but to the business of the district of columbia and that you are doing so in the most undemocratic and autocratic fashion, you who quote the constitution ought to sit down and think for a moment what the framers would have done had they seen the federal government, which they were afraid of intervening in the local affairs of any district, i ask you hands off, lay off the district of columbia.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12a of rule 1, the house will stand i

well, good morning, everybody. i want to thank my colleagues on the house budget committee, who are standing here with me for all the ward work they have of the senate committee. togethe. i want to thank jeff sessions for joining us here. this is the path of prosperity. this is the budget that we're putting forward today. this represents our choice for our country's future and it's our commitment to the american people. the facts are very, very clear. for too long, washington has not been honest with the american washington has been making empty promises to americans from a government that is going broke. the nation's fiscal trajectory is simply not sustainable. the debt is expected to grow to

catastrophic levels in the future. we don't need clever politicians in washington. we need real leadership. the president's recent pujt proposal is worse than the status quo. the president accelerates our e descent. we need more economic growth and job creation. he proposed to permanently enlarge the size, the reach, and the scope of the federal government. he offered no reforms to save the vital health and retirement programs. our budget charts a different course. it's very different than what the president has offered. we propose to cut $6.2 trillion in spending over the next ten

years. we put the nation on the path to pay off our national debt. our goal is to leave our children and grandchildren with a debt-free nation. we offer $4.4 trillion in deficit reduction in the first ten years alone. our budget is our plan to tackle the country's greatest problem. if we don't take this on head on, we don't able to do it on our own terms in the kind of gradu gradual, important, sense shl way we are talking about today. i want to thank the people at the congressional budget auoffi who work sod hard over time, overnight to get in added up. i would like to turn this over to the congressman from utah. of the budget. >> thanks, paul. thanks to my colleagues on the house budget committee. i happen to be on the oversight

and government reform committee. we're committed to changing the way we do business. we don't want to perpetuate the status quo. the cuts are important. we need to be on a trajectory to maintain the fiscal sanity in the country. we want to 'chooef a 10% reduction in the next three years over the federal work force by attrition. coupled with a true pay freeze. we want to tend corporate welfare, end permanent bailout of dodd-frank. we want to take fannie and freddie off the back of the people. we are committed to reform. it will be an exciting process moving forward. i think the american people will be excited that we're living up to the obligations and commits

commitments in the pledge to america. thank you. >> one of the things we are vying to achieve is we believe in this country that we ought to have a social safety net. we believe we should have a safety net to keep people from slipping through the crackses and to help people that cannot held themselves. the social safety net is fraying at the seams. i want to turn to todd young from indiana. >> well, we mst not just focus on getting government smaller and more efficient. it has to be more effective. we in the budget, build on the successes of welfare reform in the 1990s, starting with medicaid. it's program that, for decades, has ensured access to health care to millions of low-income

americans. we want to it be sustainable. right now, it's unsustainable. we looked at the financing structure. governors, like mitch daniels of indiana, governors of both parties are looking for more discorrection. we ant to tend one size fits all approach to medicaid financing. we convert federal spending into block grants. we give governors, if conjunction with the state le e legislator legislators, the able to change things for their constituents. other one size fits all programs we would change to block grant programs for the states. we give the governors flexibility to tar get aid to

the neediest citizens. the best welfare program is a job. we changed the job training program. we changed it to a single program. a program we can hold accountable. it's a targeted scholarship program. lit prepare the workers for a globally competitive economy. these are bold programs, bold reforms, but they're reasonable. the things many of us campaigned on before we got here to washington. i welcome a constructive dialogue. next, dr. price, to discuss the reform of health entitlements. >> thank you. americans are truly sick and tired of washington's accounting tricks and budget gimmicks. as the chairman said, empty proms.

this budget, this budget rig here, this path to prosperity is based on facts. as a physician,ky tell you that the facts are that obama care is a threat to the affordability and accessibility and quality of health care. it takes away choices from patients and families and doctors and saddles workers and job creators and taxpayers with trillions of dollars in costs. the current medicare spending is growing at a rate twice as fast as the nation's economy with 10,000 baby boomers reaching retirement age every day. this budget repealed obama care and saves medicare so that health and retirement security will be possible for all americans. this budget repeals and defunds the government takeover of health care so we can advance patient-centered health reforms. this budget talked about the current unstaenlable trajectory

of medicare. it saves the program for future generations. we allow folks access to the same kinds of coverage options that members of congress enjoy. no changes. let me repeat, no changes are made that would affect those in or near retirement. this budget also forces action on saving social security. by requiring the president and congressional leaders to put forward solutions to save this critical program. many of us have offered ideas on how to save social security. more will be forthcoming. this budget, right here, will move us from an era of debt and doubt and despair into a stable and secure future by being honest with the american people. i'm honored and proud to stand with my colleagues to support the path to prosperity.

>> next, diane black. a member of the house ways and manes committee. >> thank you. i'm proud to be standing here today as a member of the committee, unveiling a budget that takes real steps to get this country's finances back on track. and focuses on real economic growth and job creation. this republican budget stands in sharp contrast to the one that the president released a few months ago. which would impose a 1.5 trillion dollar tax hike on american families. that is not including the $800 billion tax increase contained in obama care. this budget halts the president's plans to burden our hard-working americans are more taxes. it keeps taxings low so that the economy can grow again. by lowering these rates and broadening the base, we can ensure that our tax code is

simpler for families, less burdensome for our workers and allow job creators to grow businesses and hire more people. it encourages economic growth that is the key to our country's future prosperity. as a member of the ways and means committee, i know that the chairman hasout outlined a pro-growth reform for individuals and the corporate side. we're serious about forwarding proven pro-growth policies. if both of my committees, we're working to get this country back on a sound financial footing. i'm proud to be here today as part of the majority to lead where the president has failed pop that is to restore america's future growth and prosperity. i turn t i back over to our chairman. >> i want to congratulate diane on her great choice of committee

assignments. they often say around here that the democrats are the adversary ris and the enemy is the senate. that is not how we view senator jeff sessions. let me now turn it over to him. >> well, this is really not a political matter at its bottom. president obama's budget committee chairman told us, erskine bowles and allen simpson that we're facing the most predictable crisis in our nation's history. the budget act allows three budgets to be submitted. one from the president, one from the house, one from the senate. the president has submitted the most irresponsible budget in the history of this republic. he has punted.

he has increased spending every year. he increases taxes. and increases debt. interest rates would go from -- interest payments from $200 billion last year to $940 billion in ten years. so, this -- the senate has produced nothing. and the house has stood firm. you have in the face of all kinds of threats, that we're going to attack you, and we're going use every kind of political force against you, you have looked the american people in the eye, and submitted a fact-based budget. that will stand up to scrutiny that will alter the unacceptable trajectory we're now on. people can disagree and make suggestions about the details. but fund mentallyfundamentally,

honest budget. we're going take to it the senate. we're going to stand up to those that will attack you for having the courage to tell the truth about the challenges we face. and i believe we're starting a national dialogue. thank you for your courage and your willingness to stand firm. >> thank you, senator. let me walk you through some of the charts and some of the numbers. look at the screens on the side here. let's look at spending, first of all. let's look at spending. all right, look at our historic path of spending. the size of the government has been around 20%. this is the path that the president's budget is come

complicit with. we bring the size of the government back down to 20% of the gdp and lower it from there. we have budget enforcement measures. we get $6.2 trillion in sending cuts off the president's budget. let's take a look at deficits. take a look at where we are headed. we have had deficits in the past. we had a small-time pusurplus. look at where we're headed. this is the path of the status q quo. these are the kinds of deficits we'll have if we don't fix the problem. here is the path we're proposing. very different choice of two different futures. let's talk about debt. now, we have had debt in the country before.

people are familiar with it. people get a mortgage to buy a house, get a car loan. you measure your department relative to nincome. look at our debt. since world war ii, we have had debt. 108% gdp. we had high department. loaned it mostly to ourselves. the debt went back down. look at what the congressional budget office is telling us is our future of debt. this red ink will destroy our economy. we know, as matter of fact, that weaver giving the next generation a lower standard of living. we asked the congressional budget off to tell us what the future of the economy looks like. models break this 2037. the computer crashes in 2037. they can't conceive of a time in which the economy can continue

in that moment because of the debt. this is our debt path. we, according to bco's long-term analysis, we get this contained, under control, we get it paid off. our children. we believe we have a moral responsibility to put the kinds of controls and reforms in place that keep this country growing. now, let me turn to growth. we need jobs growth, we need economic growth. so we asked the heritage center for data analysis to review this budget with respect to economic growth. they use the global insight model which is the model most used. this plan results in faster economic growth. nearly $1.5 trillion in additional economic growth over the decade. this plan is an estimated to result in more jobs. nearly 1 million jobs next year

to be created under this plan than otherwise would be. it predicts that the unemployment rate goes down to 4% in the year 2015, and then the last year of this budget, we're kicking off creating nearly 2.5 million new jobs in the private sector in that year alone. it also predicts higher wages. $1.1 trillion in higher wages for workers, also higher family income. nearly $1,000 per family, per year results from the better economic growth that this plan for prosperity presents. this is a plan for prosperity. and so when you take a look at the choice of two futures we have, we can either choose the red line, which is the sea of debt and deficits. the line the president's proposing we go on, the line our country is on, or we can choose that green line where we face up to the challenges that are confronting this generation now to give our country a better future. we've always had a legacy in this country, where each

generation, whether it's war, depression, or what not takes on its generation's challenges so the next generation is better off. we know for a fact that we are not going to be giving our children a better standard of living. we know we're not going to make them better off. that is a fact not doubted by any independent fiscal expert. we owe it to our country, to our kids to fix this problem. let me close with this. one of the worst experiences i had in congress was the 2008 financial crash. that caught us by surprise. we were in the middle of all the negotiations where we had an economic crash that came. and out of that resulted really ugly legislation, t.a.r.p. and then we witnessed trillions of wealth being lost, millions of seniors lose their savings, and then we witnessed millions of people lose their jobs. we're still trying to recover. let me ask anybody who is listening this, what if your

congressman, your president saw it coming? what if they knew it was going to happen? what if they knew why it was going to happen, when it was going to happen, what nature, and more importantly, what if they knew what could prevent it from happening and they had time to prevent it but they decided not to because it wasn't good politics? what would you think of your president, your member of congress? well, that is where we are right now. this is the most predictable economic crisis in our history, and what are we doing? playing politics? we don't need clever politicians, we need leaders, leadership. and so we believe we have a moral imperative. we got together on the budget committee on our republican caucus. and we decided it is time to stand up and do what is necessary to fix this country. we need to be honest with the american people about the problems we face, we need a fact-based budget, no more

counting tricks, no more budget gimmicks. and that is what we're offering the american people with this path for prosperity. happy to take your questions. >> -- all the changes you proposed, this budget would not see a surplus till 2040. >> till late 2030s. that's right. >> 28 years. for a generation. some of your fellow republicans, maybe not those standing here say we've got to do it sooner. >> so dana, this just shows you how deep of a hole our country is in. this just shows you it took many years to get in this hole and it's going to take a lot of years to get us out of this hole. what matters most is we get this on the right trajectory, get our debt containable. this just shows you, the sooner you act to fix these problems, the better off everybody is. as was mentioned before, the kinds of reforms we're proposing don't affect senior citizens, don't take benefits away from people 55 and above. and we can achieve that if we go

now. what happens if we keep kickinging the can down the road, we go about $10 trillion into the hole of more empty promises every year we don't do anything. that means cuts to seniors, taxes that slow down the economy, so we want to prevent that and get it on the right glide path. the it's going to take us a long time to dig our way out, but we can dig out in a sensible way, secure way and save these entitlement programs. >> if you didn't go as far as you went in cutting taxes -- >> we do not propose increasing taxes. here's a big difference. if you on paper raise taxes, can you move the numbers farther? sure. here's what happens. you lose jobs, economic growth. we need two things, spending cuts and reforms and economic growth. you raise taxes on the economy, you raise taxes on the american people, you don't get the growth. here's the other problem, we are in the 21st century, global economic environment.

in wisconsin, we don't just compete with people from illinois and iowa, at the highest tax rate in the industrialized world. when we tax our producers, our small businesses, our economic producers more than our foreign competitors tax theirs. we lose, they win, we don't want that to happen. we need economic growth through fundamental tax reform. >> the timing comes amid this debate. is there any effort by leadership or you or others saying, look, if we can keep the government open, we'll be able to cut trlgs. the number of freshmen here, the people who are resistant, anything less than $61 billion, could that be used to keep the government open? this is how we do this every year. >> yeah. so the question is we have a cr, a government shutdown, billions in spending cuts, does this help

move us through this moment? first of all, the reason we're talking about a cr is because the government didn't pass a budget last year. they didn't pass let alone even propose a budget. that's why we're in the mess we're in right now. second point is, we're going to play by the rules. not only propose a budget, we're going to move a budget in a time line that has been prepared by the budget act. so we do want to get from talking about saving billions of dollars, which we want to save, to talking about saving trillions of dollars and getting this country on the right path. >> i know the timing -- >> i don't know the answer -- look, we will have passed three bills now to prevent a government shutdown. we pass our first one 45 days ago. the senate hasn't passed one. if you're talking about who's aiming for a government shutdown, look at the legislative chamber, the united

states senate that has not passed one bill. we don't want a government shutdown, but we don't want to rubber stamp high, big spending. >> why didn't you address that? and secondly, why do you guys agree with the administration on the defense budget? >> so let me go with the defense budget. we think bob gates is doing a good job. we think secretary gates has done a good job looking for a bunch of waste and inefficiencies. our budget reflects those policies, are flekreflects rein $100 billion and saving $28 billion from the defense budget. i'll turn it over to my friend, the colleague from oklahoma, mr. lankford for a moment. but health care, we know where the democrats and the president want to go.

we've put out specific alternatives. social security is the area in which i hope we still have room for bipartisan agreement. so what we are trying to do in this budget is advance that idea. set the table, require the president to -- the senate and the congress to submit plans so we can actually get on to the idea of saving social security on a bipartisan basis. and with that, i'll turn it over to mr. lankford. >> we're dealing with a senate and a presidency at this point saying social security's later, later, later. what we want to be able to do is send it out and say, let's have them look at it. if this is not solvent at this point, we've all got to come to the table with the plan. at least, step one of this, admit there's a problem. currently we've got the senate and the presidency saying there may be a problem. we can have good options on this and resolve it. but we've got to get all three groups to the table. step one for us is a very clear

statement to say all of us have got to come to the table. if we're shown to be insolvent, it puts a trigger for the house, senate, and the presidents all bring a plan, we've got to start working through the plan. we've got to get together on it. >> the fundamental deal of the bargain was that democrats were going to accept changes in the entitlement program they didn't want to do. republicans were going to accept changes in the tax system they didn't want to do. and everybody was going to swallow pain for some kind of political deal. why are you basically rejecting that, you know, that agreement that everybody is going to do something they really don't want to do. >> we have dozens of proposals here from the deficit commission. i was a member of the deficit commission. i think bowles and simpson did a

great job. the reason i didn't vote for the deficit commission at the end of the day and i can speak for others, is that it didn't address the key drivers of our debt, health care. this is why we put out a plan in the debt commission to deal with medicare and medicaid. alice rivlin is a great democrat. this path to prosperity -- the reason we didn't support the debt commission is because it didn't in my opinion deal with the drivers of our debt. the issue on taxes is this, if you tax something more, you get less of it. if you tax something less, you get more of it. we don't want to tax jobs more, investment more, small businesses and entrepreneurs more, we want them to be taxed less so we can get more of them. more jobs, more growth, so we're

proposing very similar to simpson/bowles, lower the tax rates, broaden the tax base to get more growth. >> and real quickly, rivlin/ryan maintains a fee for service. >> no, it doesn't. it's different. but as we go through the specks of this, follow through details, it's a budget resolution. i think that's something we should definitely -- i think that's a good idea. carl. >> what do you say to nervous republicans who say this is a political kamikaze mission. you've given democrats a big target that may cost republicans the majority. >> none of them say that. just kidding. you know, jonathan, look at these people. look at these new people who just got here, you know, they didn't come here for a political career. they came here for a cause.

this is not a budget, this is a cause. and we are here to try to fix this country's problems. and if that means we have to go first and offer solutions, fine. we owe it to the country to have an honest debate, to have that adult conversation that's necessary. and that is our contribution to the debate. we cannot keep going down the path of fearing what the other political party would do to us if we try to solve a problem. if we keep going down that path, then we know what that future looks like. >> is there any way any of these proposals can be enacted before the next election? >> sure, of course they are. if we try to judge our decisions based upon whether or not this

can get into law, or not, then we might, as well, go home. i think a lot of these ideas can be put into law. i think we're trying to set the table for social security reform. i think there's a lot of things in here. a lot of things came from democrats. a lot of these ideas came from democrats, the fiscal commission, the general accountability office. we're trying to get as many bipartisan solutions that have bipartisan fingerprints on them. putting them together and advancing them. and we might have to have a debate or decision about the choice of two futures. the path the president has proposed, the path of higher taxes, higher debt, a diminished country. we don't want that path. we want the path of the american idea of being alive and thriving for the next generation. >> a lot of republicans, the majority of republicans, every senate republican -- you've got $18 trillion in debt over the

next decade. do you need to re-write that amendment? how is this compatible with getting rid of the deficit in five years? >> i've been a supporter of the balanced budget amendment since i came to congress in 1998. our baseline, our fiscal situation has gotten so bad, this just tells you what kind of work it needs to do to fix it. one of the components of the balanced budget amendment is a cap on government spending. we proposed that. i think the key component for freedom and economic liberty is bring the size of government down. this brings the size of government down. so that our government is limited in scope so our economy and people can be free. this is about securing prosperity for the next generation, growing our economy now. if we would have a balanced budget amendment in law, it would probably take seven to ten years to do that. so it's pretty crazy to try and speculate what the baseline will look like at that moment. but the key here is using real

numbers, we're supporting a path to getting this paid off. >> what is it you hope the administration -- is there a >> okay. the first question is, what do i hope the administration? i don't know, i hope they read it before they criticize it. that hasn't happened yet today. but i hope they take a sincere look at it. i hope the administration looks and sees, well, this idea i agree with, this idea we don't. my sincere hope is we've got to get something done in this government. hopefully the administration will say, you know what? you republicans on a, b, and c, we agree with, x, y, and z on obamacare we don't agree with you. we'll see. hopefully that can occur. on the debt limit, we think this gives you a great menu of options and policies to pick from as a package with a debt limit. so we think we advance the

conversation on going toward the debt limit. because what's the purpose of having a debt limit? stop it from going up. and let's not rubber stamp just another debt limit increase without fixing this country for our current economy and children and grandchildren. there are a lot of ideas in here on how to do that. >> you have different approaches to medicare and medicaid. in the case of social security, you talk about a process, you say this is a chance for bipartisan consensus. what's the path to getting there? >> one of the reasons we put specific details out there on medicare is because the president already went a different direction with health care, the democrats went a different direction in health care. they believe in a government-run system. and i think history shows you that it doesn't work. and we repeal, the government rationing commission. that is a rationing agent that

will basically price control medicare down, tighten the screws and will send a lot of providers out of business. on your point. you know my road map well, my road map does have vouchers. this is a different proposal. this is not a voucher system. this is a premium support system. it works like the drug benefit works for current seniors today. name me another program that came in 40% cost projections. medicare part d did, why? because it gives consumers, seniors, choice. it has insurers competing against each other for their business. we want to harness the power of patient choice, of competition on behalf of future seniors in medicare. what we're proposing is no changes for anybody who is 55 and above. they get the medicare they've organized their retirement around, but because medicare is going insolvent and bankrupt

according to the trustees, because we want to save medicare because it's a program people can rely upon, we propose to convert it to a system for younger people that is identical to the system i have as a member of congress and all federal workers enjoy. it's choice, competition, protection. we propose that we support people more for low income, more as they're sick. and doing it that way fixes the problem. saves medicare. under this bill, medicare and medicaid, spending goes up every single year. it goes up at a more sustainable rate so it's sustainable. >> it sounds like you're saying there's no possibility of a bipartisan -- >> i think the president and the democrats have leaned forward farther on health care and they've chosen. they've done medicare law, medicaid law, health care law, which we really disagree with. and so i don't know that the specter of a compromise. something tells me when we repeal obamacare, he's probably not going to sign that bill into

law. so social security's an area where i do -- i'm cautiously optimistic about progress. i do believe this is a program we can fix. we didn't quite get there. i'd like to think that was an area we can get some success on. and that's why what we put in here was to set the process for a bipartisan solution. >> what are the assumptions you're basing your projections? >> this is cbo numbers. we're using cbo's long-term score. cbo -- we don't give cbo assumptions. they use their baseline of their score. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> house budget committee ranking member chris van hollen said today that the house republican 2011 budget plan -- 2012 plan fails the test of balance and will weaken america in the long run. he said the republican proposals cut too much spending without eliminating unnecessary tax breaks for the wealthy and for oil companies. congressman van hollen said the democratic alternative to the 2012 budget will be up for floor debate by a week from tomorrow. >> good afternoon, everybody. thank you for joining us. i'm pleased to be here with my colleagues, allison schwartz, john yarmuth. paul tonko and a new member on the democratic caucus, karen bass from california. and we're here today to respond

to the house republican budget. we welcome an honest, vigorous and respectful debate about the best way to move the country forward, to keep our fragile recovery going, to create jobs and to reduce the deficit. and we all agree that we must act now to put in place a plan to reduce our deficit in a steady, predictable and responsible manner. the question is how do you best do that? as the bipartisan fiscal commission has indicated, any responsible effort, any responsible effort to tackle the deficit requires a balanced approach that addresses both spending and revenue. this house republican plan failed that very simple test. you just have to hear the comments that were just made today by both allen simpson and

ers kin bowls. i read from their statement, the republican house plan falls short of the balanced comprehensive approach needed to achieve the broad bipartisan agreement necessary to enact a responsible plan. the republican plan largely exempts defense spending from reduction and would not apply any of the savings from eliminating or reducing tax expenditures as part of tax reform to deficit reduction. as a result the chairman's plan relies on much larger reductions in domestic discretionary spending than does the commission proposal, while also calling for savings in some safety net programs, cuts that would place a disproportionately adverse impact on certain disadvantaged populations. so we've already had the verdict rendered by the leaders of the bipartisan commission that the republican plan in the house fails the simple test of

balance. in fact, if you look at the republican plan, it is simply a recycled rigid ideology that says, we need to provide big tax breaks to the very wealthy and the very powerful at the expense of the rest of the country. it's dressed up in a lot of nice-sounding rhetoric about reform, but in fact it's the same tired old play book. we've seen before. they preserve and in fact increase tax cuts for the very wealthiest americans, they keep in place a tax subsidy, taxpayer giveaways to the oil and gas industry and other special corporate interests, while they cut education for our kids, while they cut investments in research, in science, and while they end the medicare guarantee for seniors and require seniors

to go into a private insurance plan and they're at the whims of the insurance industry with constantly lowering amounts of support. all the risk goes to the seniors. now, the government is to choose and we believe that their plan will weaken america in the long run. it is not courageous to protect the most powerful interests and the very wealthy at the expense of critical investments in our country. and yet that is what they do going forward. now i want to just turn to these charts here because it suggests that they are way out of the mainstream when it comes to any responsible proposal of deficit reduction. [inaudible] >> microphone. >> you all remember david, he was budget director during the reagan administration and he's made it very clear that he finds

unconscionable that the republican leadership, faced with $1.5 trillion deficit, could possibly believe that it's good public policy to maintain tax cuts for the top 2%. and yet that's what this budget does. in fact, it increases the tax breaks for the top 2% because when you lower the top ranked, the 25%, and keep cart revenue constant, you're going to be hitting middle income taxpayers to pay for tax breaks for the folks at the very top. now, i listened earlier to the chairman of the committee, chairman ryan, when he was asked, you know, why they continued tax breaks for the folks at the very top and his argument was that was necessary for economic growth. well, the facts tell a very different story. and i want to turn to this chart right here. what this shows is the tax rates for the very top income earners

that were replaced during the clinton administration, a period of rapid economic growth, almost 4% real g.d.p. growth, and compare that to what happened when you provided the bush tax cuts that disproportion atly benefited the folks at the top, you see in fact, and we all felt it very strongly, we saw only 2.1% real g.d.p. growth during those years, even though you had the lower tax rates. now, the point is that there are a lot of things that move our economy and clearly that is not a primary factor and anyone who is interested in reducing the deficit as opposed to another ideological agenda recognizes you have to address that part of the proposal. this is a similar chart, it just shows job growth during the booming years during the clinton administration, when the economy was booming. again, during the eight years of the previous administration,

when you had the lower tax rates for the folks on top, you actually lost 653 private sector jobs. again, the idea that those little marginal differences drive major economic decisions is just disproven by the facts. here's the difference is when you look at the fiscal commission in terms of balance. the difference between the fiscal commission and the house republican plan when it comes to over the next 10 years, $2.5 trillion. the commission, many people don't know this, the commission assumed that we would return to the clinton era tax rates for folks at the very top. now, when you make those significant cuts, as the commission representatives have said, you're going to really cut into important investments that are important to keep our economy strong. we all recognize that there are

cuts to be made and g.a.o. has identified many of them, but you're going to hear from paul tonko in a minute about why it's so important to maintain those investments and before that you're going to hear from john yarmuth, a little bit more about the tax side of the equation. but before we go to them, i want to turn to the question of health care. health care. there's zill a lot of debate -- there's still a lot of debate over the last many years on the health care question. every member of the budget committee, every member of the budget committee, republicans and democrats alike, understand that rising health care costs represent a huge challenge for the federal budget as they do for every family budget because the reality is that the health care costs in medicare and medicaid have been tracking the health care rising costs in the rest of the health care system over the last 30 years. if luke at just the last 10

years the growth and cost of medicaid is much lower than the increase of health care costs in the private sector. so when you look at this problem, you have to recognize that the challenge is to get overall health care costs down. and that is why passing the affordable care act last year was so important. because it is designed to drive down the costs per person of health care over the long run. and in fact we heard some talk earlier today about -- from the doctor's approach to certain issues. i want to make it clear when she testified a few weeks ago before the committee she indicated that it would be a huge mistake to repeal the affordable care act. and here's what she said. quote, repealing affordable care act would cause needless economic harm and would set back

efforts to create a more disciplined and more effective health care system. she also said, and i quote, i do believe that almost every idea about improving quality and reducing cost was incorporated in some way, usually as a pilot program, into the affordable care act and we need to fund it. finally she said, quote, i strongly believe that the affordable care act has the potential to bend the cost curve and if in fact this is a chart put together by the medicare trustees based on their data that shows if you implement the affordable care act as it was passed, you will indeed bring down the costs of medicare over a period of time. now, i want to say a word about so-called reforms in the republican proposal. and i want people to really

focus on this fact. you may remember that during the last campaign republican candidates ran all sorts of ads against the democrats saying that we slashed $500 billion out of medicare. in fact, in an op ed written for a local paper, chairman ryan said that president obama broke his, quote, promises to seniors by cutting medicare by hundreds of billions of dollars. the reality, when you go look at their budget, the medicare reforms that we made, including ending the overpayments to medicare advantage, including some of the other reforms to bring down the cost of health care during this next 10-year window, it looks to us like they have kept the very savings in medicare that they railed against over the last couple

months and years. in fact, it looks like over the next 10 years that is the privel primary cause -- primary cause of the medicare number they have in the budget. in other words, the health care reforms enacted in the affordable care act, which they say they're repealing, they're not repealing at all. they're exeeping -- keeping, as far as we can tell, the savings in medicare and those savings that were made with the democratic majority in congress represent a significant amount of the funds available in medicare over the next 10 years. now, what do they do? with medicare? they essentially end medicare as we know it. they don't reform it, they deform it. they take away the medicare guarantee for seniors, they say you've got to go into the private insurance market and by the way we'll give you a voucher or whatever you want to call it

that will reduce value over time and all the risk, all the risk of increased cost in the health care system will be borne by the medicare beneficiary, the seniors. even if they get rid of the one mechanism that they kept, that they got rid of, excuse me, in the health care reform bill, was the creation of a commission to help recommended reduce costs. they get rid that have, which will lead to increaseed costs in medicare and then they turn around and put all the risk and burden on the seen -- senior citizen under medicare. it is a radical change and it is extremely bad for seniors. finally, i just want to say with respect to medicare, excuse me, allyson schwartz is going to talk in more detail about the medical cuts. i want to turn to medicaid and karen bass is going to address

those. simply put, turning medicaid into a block grant program is just code for cutting deeply into supports for seniors in mursing homes, seniors in assisted living facilities, low income kids, disabled individuals and the most vulnerable population. it's a blank check to governors with a license to cut those individuals -- cut the support for those individuals in our society. it is certainly not courageous to pick on some of the most vulnerable in our society. and finally i'll just end by saying this notion, this or wellian notion that -- orwellian notion that ending the medicare guarantee for seniors and block granting medicare in a way that will hurt seniors and disabled individuals in nursing homes and

other settings, to suggest that that is done to save medicare's little recommend necessarient of that twisting saying that you have to destroy the bill in order to save it. this will do terrible damage to medicare and medicaid and everybody who has paid into the medicare system and relies on that system for their supports and all of us know that it wasn't that long ago that republican members of congress strongly fought the establishment of medicare, the establishment of social security and certainly we're not going to stand by while they undermine the fundamental integrities of those important supports for seniors and others in our society which all of those seniors have paid into that

system. so with that i'm going to turn it over to congressman john yarmuth, a great member of the committee from kentucky, who is going to talk about the republican approach to tax cuts for the wealthy. >> thank you very much, chris. when i decided to run for congress back in 2006, i did it because i thought the bush tax cuts were fundamentally unfair, at a time of great difficult circumstances for many americans and also fighting two wars, that the notion that we should cut taxes for the very wealthiest was offensive and demonstrated the wrong values and that was at a time actually when the social safety net was much better than it will be under the republican budget. mr. ryan calls this budget the path to prosperity. it's actually a payback to the prosperous. this is a budget that asks

virtually all americans to suffer, take a little pain, but it asks nothing of the very wealthiest americans, the ones who have experienced the greatest growth in their income and wealth over the last 10 years, probably in the history of this country, at least in the last 80 or 90 years. what we've seen here under the ryan budget is a proposal that over the next 10 years will reduce taxes for the wealthiest 2% of americans by $807 billion, the same time, as chris mentioned and others will, cutting medicaid by $1 trillion, cutting education funding, cutting research and development , cutting support programs for low income seniors and people with low income families, with children, all of the things that i think reflect well on our values as a nation them. don't ask the wealthiest to pay don't ask the wealthiest to pay a combren.