breaks for the oil companies in spite of the fact that they have made $900 billion in profit over the last decade. they have maintained all the tax breaks, all the tax expenditures which amount to $1 trillion a year, these are tax expenditures which if they were actually recorded on the budget as government programs, republicans would hail about, but since they're true the -- through the tax code and benefit their major supporters and the wealthiest americans, they're fine. those tax ex ex pecks tends along -- expenditures alone amount to almost all discrer spending in the budget. they don't touch any of those. . this is the most imbalanced budget and wreaks a high price on all americans except the very wealthy.

$771 billion cut in medicaid. this is the statement of the republican values right here. these are the wealthy. those are the people who need care and need aid. i want to say one thing about this notion that you need to cut taxes to generate economic prosperity. my brother owns a barbeque restaurant and does very well and i do very well because i have invested. returning to the pre-bush tax cut levels, my brother in 2008 said, i'm going to support barack obama, even though he was always a republican and wanted to pay less tax. and i would -- said, why would you do that? he said everyone can afford barbeque. doesn't matter what the tax

rates are if there is no business. we had a meeting in kentucky, white house business council put on a meeting, all business people in the room, sponsored by the chamber of commerce. virtually everybody in that room was asking for more government support for education, for things like child care, research and development. i thought i was at a progressive caucus meeting and these were business people. they didn't mention tax cuts on the wealthiest people in the country. they know we need to make the kind of investments in human capital. this budget doesn't do that and imposes great pain on the people who can least withstand it and gives great benefit to the people who don't need it. >> thank you, john. we'll hear from paul tonko, who is going to talk about the importance of maintaining investments to keep the country strong. >> thank you for your great

service as ranking member of our minority on the budget committee. and i'm impressed with the work that my colleagues in the democratic rank have done in the last several weeks to bring some balance to the equation. i firmly believe that america needs and deserves a plan that creates jobs, not costs jobs. and that plan for america and her working families requires that it be written with courage, not cowardes. so i see this plan as a wakeup call. working families across this country should have the sounding alarm at home, buyer beware. this is an attack on our middle class families, on our working families. it is an attack on those programs that really respond to growing jobs.

now undenbly, the message that we all heard, democrats and republicans in the last campaign was jobs, jobs and jobs. no higher priority professed. where is the jobs package? this one reduces jobs because in the last three months of the 112th session of congress, we have seen no jobs legislation presented by the majority. and so the theme continues. they want to disrupt the curve, slow, steady upward that has produced 1.8 million johns since 2010. private sector jobs, what a comeback from the very long and painful recession that drained our economy of 8.2 million jobs. look at the red ink on this chart and the bar graph that shows the steady decline of

american jobs. and then the turning point that comes early in 2009 as we begin to climb upward. why would we want to disrupt, disrupt that steady progress? this is, you know i have heard of voo do economics. this makes it look pale. this reduces jobs at a time when we need to invest in jobs and we seem to defund with this plan. we have the rest of the world, the global economy investing in their nations to be competitive. this dulls our competitiveness. it attacks our middle class. and it does not provide the investments that we need for a stronger economy. now, the economics we see here on this bar graph speaks of the think tanks and what they think of this plan and whether you buy

the 200,000 or 197,000, everyone is suggesting it's going to drain jobs. this is creating the slippery slope and climb the mountain to get to the 1.8 million but now we get to the slippery slope to lose jobs, which is the wrong direction to follow. how do we do that? well, they suggest we drain $29 billion from education and training. $29 billion. they suggest $276 billion be removed for the sake of transportation over a 10-year period. and then with science and tech, a $50 billion reduction over 10 years. now be mindful, as we engage in this global race on clean energy and innovation, i agree with the president when he says, whoever wins this race emerges the go-to nation. you will be the exporter of

energy intellect and clean energy ideas. why would we want to put that at risks? we have received the news that we dropped to third in private sector investment for energy sector after china and germany. the america i know and love is number one and that's what this democratic minority in the house is about, keeping america number one. this is a slash on jobs. it will impact our economy tremendously because as has been stated so many times by the economists, unemployment is driving the deficit. if we invest, we can expect a great impact on reducing that deficit. the road map here, the ryan road map is the way to the cliff and then over the cliff. it will wreck our economic comeback, it will destroy the

hope we want to provide, should provide for america's working families, it deficient states the work force of the future by impacting on education funding. it denies r&d research and development at a time that is most critical. we won the global race in space because we had the passion to make a difference and landed that person nirs on the move simply because we committed our resources, our energy and our passions to making it happen. look at what we are doing here. we are challenged to enter the global race and from the republican majority in the house, defund, disinvest, don't worry about the r&d or making it in america. invest in manufacturing? no such way. this is a dreadful outcome. it required courage and as we go forward we need to fix this plan. wakeup plan for america and her workers. let's denounce this plan from

the republican majority. >> next, karen bass is one of our new members who comes to us from state politics in california and knows very clearly the impact of the republican medicaid proposals as well as others. >> thank you. just like the road map to america's future, the republican path to prosperity is a pathway to despair. the republicans are concerned about kicking the can down the road, but they have no problem kicking seniors and children to the curb. the 60-page document that we received today is a statement that captures democratic language and gives lip service to democratic values while covering up a radical agenda that wol dramatically alter the quality of life for america's families. their budget proposal is a country we wouldn't recognize.

i look forward to the details of the republican plan. what we need is a balanced approach that speaker after speaker at the budget committee said we must address the deficit through a balanced approach. in their proposal, they propose no revenue. they only propose cuts and schemes. giving lip service to democratic values and language, i want to give a couple of examples. they talk about ending corporate welfare. that was ironic and there are a couple of examples of how they want to end corporate welfare and revisit the financial reform legislation and privatize fannie and and freddie and protect the safety net by cutting medicaid and having vouchers for medicare. it's not enough to say that if you're over 55, you're protected, thank you. i know i'm protected now, but the concern is about the future.

but yet the republicans would leave future generations without the resources for health care which ultimately in medicaid would result in a 35% cut. over half the users of medicaid are children. seniors use medicaid to pay for expenses that medicare doesn't cover. that's why i said the republicans are willing to kick seniors and children to the curb while expressing concern for kicking the can down the road. many governors have already weighed in on this proposals and are ock to the way they are -- objecting to the way they are reforming medicaid. states shouldn't decide what services to cover. under the guise of having flexibility for the states, if you look at it down the line, it really just results in a cut, a significant cut to medicaid. i do have to hand it to my republican colleagues, because maybe the way they attempt to capture our language and give

lip service to our values, i think we should spend some time explaining what those terms mean. corporate welfare, concern about the safety net is very transparent to think you can use language to hide a very radical agenda and trick people into blesk that the pathway to pros -- believing that the pathway to prosperity. and leaves children and disabled without the safety net. thank you very much. >> we will hear one of the veteran members of the committee who knows these issues very well , representative schwartz. >> i wanted to speak specifically to seniors. before i do, i want to share -- associate myself with my

colleagues' comments, budget is about values and priorities. i have served on the budget committee for three terms and i have seen as we deal with the budget and the budget should be about three things. they are about meeting our obligations as a nation, it is about being fiscally responsible and that is important as we have the challenge of the deficit before us and growing the economy and preparing for the future. and this budget fails all three. i'm going to speak specifically about the fact that this budget really puts seniors, american seniors at great risk. they have, as you may remember, that the republicans railed against the health reform law, now the law of the land and yet they scare seniors into believing there would be cuts to their benefits. there were no cuts to their benefits but enhancements. and i'll speak to that in a

moment. but this is a budget and what they are planning to do on medicare and medicaid should scare every senior and every american who someday hope they will be a senior. within 10 years we will not recognize medicare or medicaid. seniors will essentially be on their own to find health insurance in an individual private marketplace that has failed most americans in this country. this budget they have put forward and seniors know this, understand that they are privatizing medicare. 69% of seniors oppose privatizing. seniors know that dismantling medicare and replacing it with a voucher program means they will have no longer access to guaranteed health benefits. no guaranteed health benefits under medicare. they know the value of a limited voucher, one that is capped will

not enable them to meet the rising cost of health care. they will know they will have to pay more out of pocket and more in premiums. unfortunately, republicans are proud of this. and they are telling their seniors they will be on their own to deal with the insurance industry. they will be on their own to deal with limits on benefits. they will be on their own if there is illness or need long-term care. exclusions for certain kinds of care or settings where you can get care, there could be discrimination based on income and levels of illness and age. and medicaid, is going to be block granted, 62% of medicaid expenses are for long-term care for seniors. so we want to talk about women and children. i'm happy to do that but for seniors this is devastating.

any american who has a loved one in a nursing home, could well have to pay that out of pocket in the future because medicaid won't be there for them. so this is the same thing they are doing this for seniors. there is no question that they are protecting -- you have heard some of this already, they are spending the same amount of money if not more, to protect tax cuts to the wealthiest 2% of americans. protecting tax cuts for the oil industry and continuing by guaranteeing not to deal with the issues of inefficiencies in the pentagon. there are -- all of us have said before, all of us on the committee, republicans and democrats believe very strongly that we have to deal with this deficit and we should. but the way we do it matters. we do it on the backs of seniors in -- or share it across the spectrum and tackling tax

expenditures and costs in other arenas. and that is -- that is really the debate we are having here. and again, republicans chose last session to ignore the cost savings and strengthening of medicare for our seniors. they sat back and in fact demonized the plan, voting time and time again to end -- to stop improvements of medicare for our seniors. and they still want to repeal the law that eliminates co-payments for preventative services for seniors that makes prescription drugs more affordable and reduces errors and improves patient care and outcomes for our seniors and repeal the law that curbs the growth in medicare spending and extends the trust fund by 12 fund and saves taxpayers $400 billion by ending overpayments to insurance companies. that's what they want to stop.

this is a decision we have to make and question of our priorities. shall we willing to say we are going to balance the budget and our ranking member said it doesn't even do a good job for that. going to take money away from

seniors and end medicare as we know it and medicaid as we know it and protect the wealthiest 2% of americans and corporate america. that's a decision. we need to get serious and meet olingses to our seniors, children and our future and we can do that and we should. we aren't going to do it with the ryan budget. thank you. >> thank you, alison. be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> in the ryan budget, is there anything you can work with or do you have your own plan to move forward or raise taxes on the top 2%? >> two things. obviously, we have seen the major pieces of the republican budget here in the house. we haven't had a chance to dig down so far. it's very hard to find something that meets the objectives that we talked about, which is having a balanced approach to a deficit

reduction. yes, the democratic caucus will have an alternative and that alternative will reduce the deficits in a serious and predictable and steady way. and it will demonstrate a very different approach going forward. >> the republican budget is being cast as a platform for republicans' economic argument in 2012. can you speak to the political significance of this document and how you think it could play next year. >> it's going to be up to every republican candidate for president to decide who they want to run with this particular republican plan or not. i would just suggest they are going to want to take a very careful look at it because in addition to slashing very important investments that are necessary for our economic growth and the strength of the country, it also essentially

undercuts entirely the bargain that we made with seniors, as we have discussed. and what it does is says that we're going to end the medicare guarantee, throw seniors over to the whims of the private insurance market and we have all seen rates rising very markedly and you, the senior, are going to bear the entire risk of that added cost. so it's a budget that as we said has totally skewed the priorities and benefits the wealthy and corporate interests and at the expense of seniors. >> if i could walk back a moment, you said earlier in your comments, to govern is to choose. and republicans have said repeatedly that democrats didn't pass a budget when you were governing. and that the reason that they have to do all this cutting --

cutting spending is because you put them there in the first place. >> two things, first of all, when you are talking about the fiscal year 2011 budget, which is the debate going on right now over a very small portion of the budget, the fact is that the democrats did pass last year a budget enforcement resolution that set out the targets very clearly as to what should govern this year. in fact, when you hear the debate that republicans are making about how we have to make changes to that, that's because there was the other alternative out there. today what we're talking about is where the discussion should move to, which is taking a look at the federal budget as a whole and part of the issue with the debate going on about 2011 is republicans only want to talk about specific cuts to particular part of the budget and don't want to talk about

cuts that would involve taking the subsidies away from the oil industry. they don't want to take away loopholes in the tax code to benefit corporations and result in having many major corporations pay absolutely no income tax to share in making sure that the country is strong. so, look, that is going to be the debate going forward. talking about fiscal year 2011 and 2012. >> that is an old argument, then? >> yes. and ignores the fact that we had the one-year blueprint there. >> can you give us a time line when you plan to unveil your own budget alternative when the committee looks to mark up the ryan plan? >> we will be marking it up tomorrow. the democratic alternative will be ready for floor debate a week for tomorrow. >> on medicare, chairman ryan

said it isn't necessarily a voucher program because they will be negotiating with insurance and seniors can compare plans that members of congress have. you aren't seeing it that way? >> not at all. if he wants to call it a voucher or premium support program. it comes down to the way he has it designed. seniors will no longer have the option of being in the medicare program that they i are in today. fee-for-service program. they will be required to go into the private insurance market. number one. number two, the value of the voucher or premium support, whatever you want to call it, does not rise at the rate of health care inflation and what republican budget does, it says to seniors, you're on your own. you have to pick up the entire cost of that instead of the

approach we have taken which is in order to reduce costs in the health care system, you have to treat the whole health care system and get rid of the inefficiencies where so many americans were getting their health care at the hospitals, driving up costs for that, which is why the doctor said, number one, make sure you don't dismantle that. but, in short, what they do is shift the entire risk to seniors. just a word on the federal employee health benefit plan and other analogies. under that plan, the employees get a fixed share of the costs. in other words, the employer, in that case, the federal government, shares the risks of rising health care costs. under the republican plan, that's not the case. the burden of the rising costs is on the senior. you're on your own.

>> some of the details have yet to be worked out. and when you hear whether it is voucher or premium support, that suggests there will be a gap. and i don't know where they want to make it mean tested, so where that break is could matter a lot, seniors above $20,000 income are going to get less and less support from the federal government, the higher you go, $20,000 income. so it could well leave to millions of seniors at great risk for having the greater burden of out-of-pocket costs or buying insurance that doesn't cover their health care needs. i always joke with my senior groups and say, on one medication, two medications,

three medications, healthy seniors are pretty expensive to take care. we have improved quality and outcomes but doing that by asking the payers, the providers, hospitals, doctors, nursing homes, to do a better job, spend less money and make sure people get the health care they need and not putting it on the backs of seniors. >> it also will mean that you don't get to pick your doctor unless the doctor happens to be on a plan you can afford. it rations health care by the income of the senior because you are only going to be able to purchase what benefits are offered for that price. if benefits can't be offered at that price, you can't get the doctor or those benefits. one or two more. >> the white house didn't address it and i'm wondering if

you are going to do that >> the savings that were generated as a result of the passage of the affordable care act. i want to be clear about that. they demagogged the medicare reforms and said we are slashing medicare when we were removing the subsidies for medicare advantage plans, the overpayments they were getting at 114% of fee-for-service. that is the primary -- they have taken those savings, the same ones they criticized in their plan. but do we end the medicare guarantee for service seniors?

absolutely not. >> ryan was hoping that maybe on the social security portion of this bill that we could come toe an agreement with democrats. do you see anything with the social security language you have seen? >> we haven't seen what they have done with social security. we will have the opportunity to do that. our view is that you should not balance the budgets on the back of social security that social security can pay 100% of the benefits up to the year 2037. after that, if you do nothing at all, those benefits will drop. i believe that we should, apart from this particular budget negotiations and deficit reduction, apart from that, we should get together on a bipartisan basis like ronald reagan and try to address that issue. but, again, we shouldn't be balancing budgets or reducing

deficits by cutting social security. thank you very much. we have to go. >> will you vote if this props up? will you shut the government down? snool [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> >> president obama said it would be inexcuseable for lawmakers to fund the government until the end of the year and we are closer to an agreement to avoid a government shutdown and the president announced that boehner and reid will meet today at 4:00 p.m. to try and resolve remaining budget dispute. the current resolution funding the federal government expires this friday, april 8. >> good afternoon. as many of you know, this morning, i had a meeting with speaker boehner, leader reid, as well as the two appropriation

chairs to discuss the situation with last year's budget and i wanted to give you and more importantly the american people on where we are. from the outset, my goal has been to significantly cut our domestic spending, but at the same time make sure we are making key investments in things like education, infrastructure, innovation, the things that are going to help us win the future. and over the course of the last several months, we have identified areas where we can make substantial cuts. in fact, what we have been able to do is to present to the house republicans, a budget framework that would cut the same amount of spending as speaker boehner and chairman rogers originally proposed. their original proposal for how much would be cut.

and several weeks ago, there were discussions between the white house and speaker boehner's office, in which we said, let's start negotiating off of that number, $73 billion. we are now closer than we have ever been to getting an agreement. there is no reason why we should not get an agreement. as i said before, we have now matched the number that the speaker originally sought. the only question is whether politics or ideology are going to get in the way of preventing a government shutdown. now what does this mean for the american people? at a time when the economy is just beginning to grow and just starting to see a pickup in employment, the last thing we need is a disruption that is caused by a government shutdown. not to mention all the people

who depend on government services, where you are a veteran or somebody trying to get a passport or planning a visit to one of the national mon youments or a business owner trying to get a small business loans, you don't want delays or disruptions because of usual politics in washington. so what i said to the speaker today and what i said to leader reid and what i said to the two appropriations chairs is that myself, joe biden, my team, we are prepared to meet for as long as possible to get this resolved. my understanding is that there is go being to be a meeting between speaker and harry reid. apparently the speaker didn't want our team involved. that's fine. if they can sort it out, then we

have more than enough to do. if they can't sort it out, i want them back here tomorrow. but it would be inexcuseable for us to not be able to take care of last year's business. keep in mind we are dealing with a budget that could have gotten done three months ago, could have gotten done two months ago, last month, when we are close simply because of politics. and we are prepared to put whatever resources that are required in terms of time and energy to get this done, but that's what the american people expect. they don't like these games. and we don't have time for them. there are some things we can't control, like earthquakes, tsunamis, uprisings on the other side of the world, but what we can control is our capacity to have a reasoned, fair conversation between the parties and get the business of the

american people done. and that's what i expect. so, again, i want to reiterate, my understanding speaker and leader reid are going to have a meeting at 4:00 and if we don't start get progress, i want a meeting here at the white house. i will invite the same folks and if that doesn't work, we'll invite them the day after that. and i will have my entire team available to work through the details of getting a deal done. but right now, there's no reason why we should not get this done. and we have more than enough to do than to be spending our time going back and forth quib willing around the edges on something this important for the american people. with that, i will take a couple of questions. >> thank you, mr. president. if it came down to it, would you

approve of a short-term spending bill to avoid a government shutdown? and as the american people are watching this, do you think this is a test of your leadership? do you think the american people are expecting you to make sure that this deal happens? >> let me take each question separately. on the issue of a short-term extension, we have already done that twice. we did it once for two weeks and did another one for three weeks. that is not a way to run a government. i can't have our agencies making plans based on two-week budgets. i can't have the defense department, i can't have the state department, i can't have our various agencies on food safety and making sure our water's clean and making sure that our airports are functioning, i can't have them making decisions based on two-week budgets. the last time we had an

extension was to give the parties time to go ahead and get something done. we are now at the point there is no excuse to extend this further. if over the next 24 to 48 hours, a deal is done and we just can't get the paperwork through congress quick enough and they want to do a clean extension for two or three days in order to go ahead and complete a deal, then that's something we could support. but what we aren't going to do is to once again put off something thth should have gotten done several months ago. now, with respect to the second question, i think what the american people expect from me is the same thing that they expect from every member of congress, and that is we are looking out for the interests of the american people and not trying to score political points. i think what they are looking for from me is the same thing from speaker boehner, leader

reid and everybody else, and that is we act like grown-ups and when we are in negotiations like this that everybody gives a little bit, compromises a little bit in order to do the people's business. and i just want to set the context for this now. again, i'm going to repeat. speaker boehner, chairman rogers, the republican appropriations chairman, their original budget proposed $73 billion in cuts. we have now agreed to $73 billion worth of cuts. what they are now saying is, well, we aren't sure that every single one of the cuts that you have made are ones that we agreed to. we would rather have these cuts rather than that cut. that's not the basis for shutting down the government. we should be able to come up with a compromise in which

nobody gets 100% of what they want, but the american people get the piece of mind in knowing that folks here in washington are actually thinking about them. they are going through a whole lot of struggles right now. they are worrying about gas prices and jobs, and that's what we should be focused on. they are worrying about everything happening in the middle east, what does that mean for them. and that's what i'm spending my time worrying about. and i shouldn't have to oversee a process in which congress deals with last year's budget where we only have six months left, especially when both parties have agreed that we need to make substantial cuts and we are more or less at the same moment. >> who should the american blame if there is a government

shutdown? and could you respond to the budget plan that the house republicans unveiled today. >> i don't think the american people are interested in blaming somebody. they want people to fix problems. and offer solutions. they aren't interested in finger pointing and neither am i. what i want to do is get the business of the american people done. now, we'll have time to have a long discussion about next year's budget as well as the long-term debt and deficit issues, where we are going to have some very tough negotiations and there are going to be sharply contrasting visions in terms of where we should move the country. that is a legitimate debate to have. part of the reason that debate is going to be important, that's where 88% of the budget is. we are spending weeks and weeks and weeks arguing about is actually only 12% of the budget and is not going to

significantly dent the deficit or the debt. i'm looking forward to having that conversation, but right now, we have some business in front of us that needs to be done and that is making sure that we are cutting spending in a significant way, but we are doing it with a scrap ell instead of a machete and make investments in infrastructure and put the american people back to work and build our economy for the long-term. >> what else does the white house have to offer to make sure a deal comes through by friday? >> we are happy to reasonable proposals, but i want top repeat what i just said. we are now another speaker

boehner's original proposal. they originally asked for $73 billion worth of cuts, members of his caucus insisted on $100 billion and we said we are billing to go to $73 billion. composition of those cuts, where they come from, those are all appropriate subjects of negotiation. but by any standard, these would be reasonable cuts. in fact, if we made these cuts, they would be in absolute terms, the largest cuts in domestic discretionary spending in history and in relative terms, they would be the largest cuts as a percentage of g.d.p. since 1982. i don't think is suggesting that somehow we haven't been serious about this process. as i said, there can be negotiations about composition. what we can't be doing is using

last year's budget process to have arguments about abortion, to have arguments about the environmental protection agency, to try to use this budget negotiation as a vehicle for every ideological or political difference between the two parties. that's what the legislature is for, is to have those arguments shes but not stuff it -- but not stuff it all in one budget bill. look,, i think the american people recognize that we are in some pretty unsettled times right now. certainly businesses recognize that. families recognize it. we don't have time for games. we don't have time for trying to score political points or maneuvering or positionings.

not on this. when it comes to long-term debt and deficit, there is going to be a real debate on how do we make sure that we have a social safety net for the american people when folks have a tough time, how do we make sure that we are investing in the future and how do we pay for it. and that is a legitimate debate to have. six months are remaining in the 2011 budget. we have already hit a figure that by any standard would be historic in terms of cuts. and what we can't do is have my way or the highway approach to this problem. we can't have a my way or the highway approach to this problem, because if we start applying that approach where i have to get 110% of everything i want or else i'm going to shut down the government, we aren't going to get anything done this

year and the american people are going to be the ones who suffer. members of congress have a cushion where they can probably put up with a government shutdown, but there are a lot of people out there who can't. if you are a small business and counting on a small business loan that may make a difference as to whether or not you can keep that business going and you find out that you can't process it for three or four weeks or five weeks or six weeks because of some bickering in washington, what does that say about our priorities? doesn't make sense. one last question. president perez is an extraordinary statesman. we had an extensive discussion about what is happening in the middle east. he and i both share the belief that is both a challenge and an

opportunity that with the winds of change blowing through their world, it's more urgent than ever that we try to seize the opportunity to create a peaceful solution between the palestinians and the israelis and had interesting ideas around those issues. he also recognizes the fact that in a country like egypt, not only do we need to be nurturing democracy, but we have to make sure that economic opportunities are going there so we explored ideas about how we can provide some help and make sure that young people there see a brighter future. and that's something secretary clinton in her trip to egypt spoke extensively about and we will be rolling out additional plans along that front. >> speaker boehner said it's not just the specifics of what you want to cut or not cut, but the ones you put on the table are smoking mirrors.

how do you respond? >> i will let jay and others get into the details. here is a thumb nail of what's happened. the vast majority of the cuts that have been put forward just as what true in the republican budget are direct cuts out of domestic discretionary spending. there are some cuts that are -- that we proposed that had to do with mandatory spending. these are real cuts, for example pell grants, what we have said is instead of being able to finance year-round pell grants so you can get a pell grant for summer school as well, we are going to have to cut that out. it is a little too expensive. and we want to make sure we preserve the levels for those young people or not so young people who are going to school full-time during the year. and the way they are categorized

means that those are called mandatory spending cuts as opposed to discretionary spending cuts but still cuts. reducing the size of government and getting things we don't need in order to pay for things that we do need. and i think if you ask the budget analysts out there, including c.b.o., about the composition of what we have proposed versus what was in house bill -- house bill that passed a while back, h.r. 1, that this is consistent with those basic principles. this notion that somehow we are offering smoking mirrors, try to tell that to the democrats out there, because part of what we have done is we have been willing to cut programs that we care deeply about, that are really important. but we recognize that given the fiscal situation that we're in,

everybody has to make some sacrifices and take a hair cut and we have been willing to do that. but what we aren't willing to do is we are going to cut another 60,000 head start slots. we aren't going to be willing to go out there and say we are going to cut medical research. we aren't going to cut those things that we think are absolutely vital to the growth of the american economy and putting people back to work and that means we have to make some choices. and that is not just true for us, that's true for the republicans as well. nobody gets 100% of what they want. and we have more than met the republicans halfway at this point. ok? thank you very much everybody. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> with temporary funding for the government expiring this friday, house speaker told reporters that no agreement has

been reached in negotiations with the white house on federal spending for the rest of 2011. speaking outside his office in the u.s. capitol, mr. boehner responded to criticism from president obama that republicans are not bargaining in good faith, saying house republicans, quote, will not be put in a box, end quote and will not agree to a spending measure they do not support. >> good afternoon everyone. we had a good discussion at the white house earlier today. there was no agreement reached and so those conversations will continue. we have made clear that we're fighting for the largest spending cuts possible. talking about real spending cuts

here, no smoking mirrors. we have made clear there was never an agreement at $33 billion. that we are going to continue to fight for, again, the largest cuts possible. now we aren't going to allow the senate, nor the white house to put us in a box where we have to make a choice between two bad options, cutting the bad deal this week in order to keep the government open or allow the government to shut down due to senate inaction. and so yesterday, we did introduce a bill that would keep the government open. it has $12 billion worth of reductions in it that remains an option for us if we'd like. i said many times throughout this process that we're trying to cut spending so we can create

a better environment for job creators to create jobs in america. this is an important step that we face today in order to get real cuts. the white house is proposing cuts that are far beyond things that we would imagine. and so we wanted to get an agreement and we want to keep the government open. and with that, i'll be happy to answer a couple of questions. >> mr. boehner, you said you don't want to be put in a box because of a bad deal. to the american people watching right now, what is a fair deal to john boehner and the republicans? what constitutes a fair deal? >> we want the largest spending cuts that are possible and we will continue to fight for those. >> speaker boehner, if not $33 billion, what is a number you can accept? >> i'll do my negotiating with

the senate and white house. >> would you go for a short-term deal? >> our goal is to keep the government open. you have heard me say for the last three months that we have no interest in the government shutting down. but we are interested in cutting spending here in washington, d.c.,. we don't have a revenue problem but a spending problem and cutting spending will create jobs in america. >> do you have to have requisite cuts? >> we will continue to assess where we are in the next few hours and next few days. [inaudible question] >> will you come back tomorrow, next day and the next day? >> the conversations will continue.

[inaudible question] >> we will insist that the policy riders passed in h.r. 1 are on the table. it is just as important to many of our members as the spending cuts themselves. one more question. >> did democrats vote any cuts on the table? >> they would like to insist that $33 is the top number and will use smoking mirrors to get there. that is not acceptable to our members and we will not agree to it and will not agree to it. we will continue to fight for the largest cuts possible, including the policy riders that we passed in h.r. 1. thank you all. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the c-span video library has won an award for its contribution to history,

scholarship and public life. now a-year-old, you can watch every program since 1987, over 170,000 hours of archive video all searchable, shareable and free. it's washington, your way. >> throughout the month of april, we'll feature the top winners of this year's c-span student competition, nearly 1,500 middle and high school students submitted documentaries. watch the winning videos every morning on c-span at 6:50 just before "washington journal" and meet the students who created them. stream all the winning videos any time online at studentcam.org. >> house republicans unveiled their 2012 budget this morning. committee chairman paul ryan spoke about it.

the plan seeks about $5 trillion in deficit reduction over the next 10 years, according to the associated press and includes significant chains to the medicare and medicaid programs as well as an overhaul in the tax code. this is just an hour. >> i'm arthur brooks, president of the american enterprise institute and delighted to welcome the chairman of the house budget committee and good friend of ours, paul ryan. the congressman has just this morning presented the house republican budget to his colleagues on capitol hill. budgets are not just financial documents. they are moral documents. they speak volumes about our priorities about how we govern ourselves, how we see our future and the country we choose to pass on to our children. in short, they tell us a story about our character. paul ryan understands this, and today he comes to us to talk

about not just about the what of the house republican budget, but more importantly the why of that budget. he joins us here to talk about believing in freedom, the art of america, is painted on many canvasses and the government's budget is one of them. he has been here many times in the past year and it is an honor to host him as he presents his work for the future of our nation. he'll speak for about 20 minutes and host his own questions and answers. please join me in welcoming congressman paul ryan. [applause] >> arthur, thank you very, very much. you have done a great job of taking after a great guy and i want to thank everybody here for your warm welcome here again. you know, budget debates that are going around washington

today seem a little disconnected from reality. >> today we are going to give americans the debate they deserve. we face a choice about the future of our country. for too long, policy makers from both political parties in washington have traveled the path of least resistance. relentless spending and constant borrowing. this will path has left us on a brink of national bankruptcy and continuing down it will push our nation into a debt crisis

characterized by uncontrollable interest rates, unsustainable taxes and unprecedented economic collapse. we will leave our children a very different nation than the one we inherited. highly centralized and highly bureaucratic, less self-governing and less free. the president, whose budget punted on the drivers of our debt is not the first public official to have drifted down this path and members of his own party, who are defending his do-nothing approach while demagogging our solutions as well, well, they aren't the first either. in recent years, both political parties have squandered the public's trust. the republican majority won in 2006 just as they ended the democratic majority last fall. they reject empty promises from a government that cannot live within its means. they deserve the truth about the nation's fiscal and economic

challenges. they deserve and demand honest leaders who are willing to stand for solutions. the new house majority, which is my privilege to serve as the budget committee chairman has decided to do something differently. we have decided to offer americans the choice they deserve. the stakes in this debate are very high. they transcend what fraction a government worker in mad ison contributes to his benefit package and trand end -- transcend the difference that we settle on as we try to repair this year's budget process. at stake is the security and stability of america's fa list and that is at stake is america. if the debt poses a threat to all that we hold dear, if we truly believe that our current path leads to a debt-fueled economic crisis and demise of america's exceptional promise,

then lets suspend with it all. . let's restore america's promise and let's unsure real security through real reform. the path to prosperity is the budget we are offering today. it is not just a budget, it is a cause. it represents our choice for america's future. it represents our commitment to the american people. we aim to restore the dine mitchell that has defined america over generations. unleashing the generalous of america's workers, investors and entrepreneurs and strengthening the foundations of economic growth and job creation now indiana the future. we reject a culture of complacency and offer reforms that reward initiative, that promote initiative by rewarding work. and effort. we disavow the idea of unlimited and unrestrained government.

instead we call for a government limited to its core constitutional functions and faithful to its nobody mission to secure life, liberty and happiness for all. now more than ever it is vitally important that we act. the government's unfunded liabilities which are basically promises the government makes to current workers about their health retirement security for which it has no means to pay are projected to grow by tens of trillions of dollars in the coming years. every year that congress fails to act, the u.s. government gets closer to breaking promises to current retirees while adding to the large and growing stack of empty promises to future generations. the flawed structure of our biggest government programs is by no means the only reason that we find ourselves facing a crisis. the president in the last congress enacted major increases in spending. they diverted government agencies from their key missions and they failed to deliver on their promise to create jobs.

the biggest step in the wrong direction was the creation of two new open-ended health care retirements which will clearly accelerate our nation toward a path toward bankruptcy. programs that make up the safety net for the poor are both failing the citizens who rely on them and the taxpayers who fund them. and the tax code, the tax code is riddled with complexities and inefficiencies, creating a drag on the very economic growth that is essential for a sustainable fiscal future. the president's recent budget proposal, it would accelerate america's dissent into a debt crisis. it doubles the debt held by the public at the end of his first term and tripled it by the end of his budget. with spending that never falls below 23% of our economy. his budget permanently enlarges the size and scope of our government, it offers no reforms to save government health and retirme programs and obviously no lode leadership. our budget's very, very

different. first of all, it cuts $6.2 trillion in spending from the president's budget over just the next 10 years. it puts the nation on a path to actually pay off our debt. and it lowers the debt as a percentage of the economy now until we pay it off. our proposal brings spending on the federal government, meaning the size of the federal government, back to 20%. consistent with the post war average and reduces deficits by 4.-- $4.4 trillion in the first 10 years alone. most important, our budget tackles the nation's biggest fiscal challenges head on. it's a plan for job creation and growth today, a plan that ensures that our children inherit america that is more stronger, more prosperous and more free. as generations in the past have sacrificed to ensure for us. there are four major aspects of this budget's reform agenda. first, this budget reforms government to make possible more efficient, effective and responsible government.

second, it builds on the state- led -- welfare reform efforts and strengthens the safety social net. third, this budget helps fulfill the mission of health and retirme security for all americans -- retirement security for all americans. fourth, it reforms the tax code to promote economic growth and job creation. by removing the anchor of debt that ways -- weighs down our economy and by advancing progrowth tax tax reforms, thanks jobs budget. it send as signal to ininvestors, entrepreneurs and job creators that a brighter future is still possible, invest in america. that americans still can be a growth engine that it ought to be, as it has been. an estimate from the heritage center for debt auntil sis projects the path to prosperity will create one million jobs next year alone, bring the unploilt rate down to 4% by 2015 and result in 2 1/2 million additional private sector jobs in the last year of the decade alone. according to this analysis, it spurs economic growth with over

$1.5 trillion in real g.d.p. over the decade. it says that will will raise wages by $1.1 trillion and an average of -- $1,000 in additional family income each year. this is a path to prosperity. it begins by reforming government. the role of the federal government is both vital and limited. when government takes on too many tasks it usually doesn't do any of them very well. this budget restores limits to government in order to reduce deficits, save money for taxpayers and focus federal departments and agencies on their critical missions. the first job of government is to secure the safety and liberty of its citizens. defense spending should be executed with greater efficiency and accountability, no two ways about that. but our men and women in uniform should never be thought of as mere line items in a budget spreadsheet. this budget follows the lead of secretary robert gates, assuming $178 billion in savings from going after inefficiencies at the pentagon, but reinvesting

$100 billion of that into key military capabilities before putting the rest toward deficit reduction. other government agencies have important roles to play as well. but the budgets for many of these agencies have grown far beyond what is justified by their properly limited missions. government agencies enjoyed a 24% increase in their base spending since the president took office. nearly 85% when you include stimulus funds. the math of budget increases of the last few years have served not to help these agencies meet existing missions more effectively, but to create new missions that lie beyond the proper scope of the federal government and serve dubious public policy goals. whether an excessive e.p.a. overreach or the implementation of the disastrous new health care law. this budget refors -- store -- restores funding discipline by returning government spending agencies and freezing those

levels in place for five years. this does this not through indiscriminant cutting, it does this by proposing the elimination of dozen dozens of wasteful and duplicative program, identified by nonpartisan watchdog groups and government auditors such as the general accountability office. and it doesn't just call for government to spend less, it calls for government to refocus on creating the conditions for prosperity instead of micromanaging the economy. washington should not be in the business of picking winners and losers in the marketplace. jobs are not created when politicians reward their connected cronies with favoritism or fund their ideological adventures. jobs are created when we choose economic freedom. so our budget targets corporate welfare, it proposes programs like privatizing fannie mae and freddie mac, which are costing taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. it gets rid of the permanent wall street bailout authority that congress created last year and it rolls back expensive

handouts for uncompetitive sources of energy. instead it calls for free and open marketplace for energy development and innovation. it proposes the removal of moratoriums on safe, responsible energy exploration here in the united states, it ends washington policies that drive up gas prices and it unlocks america's vast energy resources to help lower costs, create jobs and reduce our depenty on foreign oil. if we want these reforms to last, then it's not just enough to change how much government spends. we must also change how government spends. this budget contains several budget process reforms, including real and forcible caps on spending that will reorient government toward spending and taxing only as much as it needs to fulfill its constitutionally prescribed roles. many of these ideas come from the fiscal commission which i took part in. the second part of our reform agenda seeks to build on the success of the bipartisan

welfare reform of the 1990's and in wisconsin we paved wait through this. there is a widely shared consensus in america that we support a safety net for americans who through no fault of their own have fallen on hard times. however, the government programs that make up this safety net are coming apart at the seams. it should come as no surprise that a system designed in the 1960's is not equipped to deal with the unique pressures of the 21st century. bipartisan efforts in the late 1990's transformed cash welfare by encouraging work, limiting the duration of benefits and giving states more control over the money being spent. but cash welfare is only one of 77 means-tested federal programs. others, including medicaid, food stamps and housing aid were left unmodernized and unreformed. this budget completes the work that was left undone, with reforms that are centered on individuals and led by governors at the state levels. made care -- medicaid suffers

from the same flawed structure that welfare used to suffer from. the federal government provides an open-ended match on what the states spend on medicaid, which creates perverse incentives and encourages the program's growth. and states aren't able to save money by tailoring the program to meet the unique needs of their citizens. instead they must obey these one-size-fits-all federal mandates. meaning that the only way they can save money at all is by cutting reimbursements to doctors and hospitals. what does this mean? this is why so many doctors refuse to see medicaid patients. the payment rates in many states are so low that they are losing money every time a medicaid recipient walks in their office. this budget proposes an end to the one-size-fits-all approach. it converts medicaid into a block grant and cuts the excessive federal strings, freeing states designed programs that work best for their residents, giving states more flexibility will give them a range of options that will give

medicaid patients access to better care. this budget process proposes similar reforms to the food stamp program, ending the same flawed incentive structure that rewards states for simply signing up ever-higher numbers of recipients as opposed to rewarding results is and because the best welfare program is one that ends with a job and a stable independent life for the individual, this budget aims to streamline and strengthen federal job training programs by consolidating dozens of wasteful and duplicative programs into an accountable, targeted career scholarships, aimed at empowering american workers with the resources they need to pursue their dreams. the third part of our reform will put the end to the empty promises from a government that is going broke. instead it secures health and retirme programs both for current seniors and future beneficiaries. people have organized their lives around these programs.

people have based their retirements around these programs and we need to honor that. but we also need to make sure that people -- future generations of seniors have something they can count on. i can't tell you how many people at my age bracket just don't think any of these things are going to be around for them. let's fix it so they are. we start with saving medicare. the open-ended blank-check nature of medicare's subsidy mechanism is threatening the solvency of this critical program and it is creating inexcusable levels of waste in the system. everybody who is on medicare or knows someone on medicare has stories about waste in the system. unnecessary tests, redundant treatments, the cost in both time and money of mistaken billings, misplaced records and just outright fraud. this kind of waste, let me be really clear about this, this kind of waste is inevitable in a top-down government-run system. and it translates into runaway health inflation.

this budget repairs medicare's broken structure and saves the program for current and future beneficiaries. an observance of the principle that government should reorient its policies without forcing people to reorganize their lives, the budget reforms will not affect those in or near retirement in any way. instead when people 54 years old and younger become eligible for medicare, they will be able to choose from a list of medicare-approved coverage options and pick a plan that bests suits their needs, more individual choice, more competition. medicare would then provide a payment to subsidize its costs. this plan is identical to the system that members of congress and other federal employees enjoy today. it is similar to the medicare prescription drug benefit which works very well, namely another government program that came in 40% below cost projections. why did this one do that? because it has choice and competition and we want to harness that power on behalf of future seniors. this reform plan will preserve medicare through competition

among health plans, by the millions of seniors who get to choose and by trimming billions in waste and fraud. under this plan, medicare will provide wealthy seniors with less assistance while providing more assistance for lower income beneficiaries and those with greater health care risks. reform that empowers individuals with a strengthened safety net for the poor and the sick, will guarantee that medicare can fulfill the promise of health security for america's seniors. it's also necessary to reform social security, to prevent severe cuts in benefits in the future. when we run out of i.o.u.'s at 22% of cost kicks right in. this forces policymakerers to come to the table and to work to enact commonsense reforms. it does this by requiring the president to submit a plan for restoring balance to social security trust funds and requiring congressional leaders in the senate and the house to put forth their best ideas as well. this process is designed to yield a bipartisan solution

quickly and this is one area where i still hold out hope that there is a bipartisan agreement out there to be achieved. we all know the way forward here. the president's bipartisan fiscal commission provided a pretty good example of what needs to happen to make social security solvent. the commission proposed a more progressive benefit structure with benefits for higher income workers growing more slowly than those of lower income workers who are more vulnerable to economic shocks and retirme -- retirement. it also proposes reformed that account for increases in longevity, to gradually reflect the demographic changes that are straining social security's finances. although the budget itself does not contain these change, i support both of these ideas. the goal of our budget is clear. we must save social security for current retirees and strengthen it for future generations. this budget achieves, strives to achieve, retirement security, economic security and fiscal sustainability. but none of this is possible, you can't get it done, unless we

have economic growth. this brings me to tax reform. the fourth part of our agenda. this budget recognizes that the nation's fiscal health requires a vibrant, growing private sector and a tax code that is simple, efficient and fair. unfortunately our current u.s. tax system fails on all three accounts. this budget attacks complexity, inefficiency and unfairness in the code with a set of fundamental reforms drawn from a broad consensus of economic experts and based upon the principle that government should never take a dollar from one of its citizens unless that dollar is needed for an absolutely vital national pirp. it draws on the commonly held view that the key to progrowth tax reform is to lower tax rates while broadening the tax base. that is, letting people keep more of the money that they earn while getting rid of the distortions and the loopholes that divert economic resources from their most efficient uses.

and starts out by asking, what is the right mix of tax increases and spending cuts to ballot budget? about but by asking, what is the purpose of government and then raising only as much revenue as the government needs to fund the things it's supposed to be doing. in 1981 president ronald reagan inherited a stagnant economy. with a tax code that featured 16 brackets and a top rate of 70%. when he left office in 1989 the tax code had been simplified down to just three rates with the top rate of 28%. over time brackets became added, credits have grown on a tax code like weeds. as with so many things, participating in the politics of optimism, we need to get back to the reagan model. in this case, by implementing the policies of growth. this budget begins by lowering taxes. with a top individual and corporate tax rate at 25% so we can get real growth and economic competition in america.

adopt a revenue-neutral approach, by cleaning out the loopholes that distort economic activity. finally, this budget fixes a mainly problem that has distorted economic activity over the last few years. its reforms are designed to be permanent changes in law. not temporary booster shots or short-term cuts with biment-in exploration dates -- built-in exploration date, american families and businesses need and they deserve certainty and predictability when it comes to their taxes. they need to be able to plan for their economic futures. let me close with this. america is drawing perilously close to a tipping point that has the potential to curtail free enterprise. transform our government and weaken our national identity in ways that may not be reversible. the tipping point represents two dangers, first, long-term economic decline as the number of makers diminishes and the number of takers grows. and second, gradual moral

political decline as dependency and passist weaken the nation's character. as the power to make decisions is stripped from individuals and their elected representatives and give be to nonelected bureaucrats. this budget parts a new path. it represents a new federal commitment, assuring this nation's workers, investors and entrepreneurs that the new house majority recognizes the threat that unlimited government poses to the american way of life. this affirms our cherished ideals of equal opportunity, entrepreneurship and self-reliance. these are the ideals that have cultivated the exceptional american character. a.e.i. has been a champion under arthur brooks' leadership and it continues to make the case for these ideals with clarity and force. just as this budget seeks to make them the guiding lights of american fiscal policy once again. freeing individuals by restoring limits to the size and scope of

government should not be a partisan issue. in his state of the union address on january 4, 1935, president franklin dell nor roosevelt warned the nation of the threat to america's national character from permanent dependency on the government. let me quote, the lessons of history confirmed by the evidence immediately before me show con cluesively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moraldy sint gration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. to doll out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. it is in violation of the traditions of america, closed quote. i couldn't have said it better myself. this budget offers america a model of government that is guided by the timeless principles of the american idea. this budget provides policymakers with a blueprint to put our budget on the path to

balance and our economy on the path to prosperity. this budget assures america's seniors, those who are currently retired and future retirees, that their health retirement security will be strength ed and preserved. this budget provides parents with the hope that their children will inherit a strong, free and prosperous america. it is a plan to give our children a debt-free nation so they too can realize their american dream. this is submitted for the consideration of the u.s. congress and to the american people. this budget marks the new house majority's answer to history's call. it is now up to all of to us work together to keep america exceptional. thank you very much. >> questions, anybody?

>> thank you, chairman ryan. i appreciate very much your remarks. my name is robert, i work for the rural school and community trust, we're national advocacy organization that focuses on rural schools, particularly in high poverty places. i didn't hear you mention the word education once. and we're in the prois sess now, as you well know, of re-authorizing the he will meantry and secondary education act. this administration has committed hundreds of millions of dollars both in the stimulus pack and the expectation is in the 2012 budget, investing in innovation, all the competitive grants. where is the majority in the house going when it comes to re-authorization and where does that fit into your principles? >> you're going to have to ask chairman mckeon about how he plans on re-authorizing i.d.e. -- e.a.s. they're doing lots of hearings, they haven't written their bill yet. i don't know what that's going

to work -- look like. but they're working with arne duncan on that. with respect to discretionary funds, we are setting a cap on discrer -- discretionary spending and it's up to the appropriations committee to prioritize spending underneath that. you don't get down to the microspecifics underneath those spending caps. we set the basic financial architecture in the cap and then congress for the appropriations process has to prioritize underneath that. we do, where do i talk about education, which is an area where the federal government is more deeply involved, remember, only six cents on the dollar for k through 12 education comes from the federal government. all the rest of it is local and state government. it's really the constitutional responsibility of the states and the funding mostly comes from the states. but on post secondary education we got 49 different job training programs spread across nine different government agencies. none of them are measured, they don't have metrics, dewe don't know if they're working to succeed to get people into work and into careers. so what we're trying to do is do

a consolidation and get this to the individual, to give them the ability to go to a tech school, a college, university or what not to get on to a life of fulfilling career advancement. so that's where we spend a lot of our time in education, because that is more of a federal responsibility in the current budget. yeah, michael. >> congressman, you spoke about taxes, what you can tell us about what the ways and means committee is likely to do? the next -- in the session of congress? if anything? >> the tax reform that we have in here was given to me by dave camp, the chairman of the ways and means committee. i'm also a member. so we worked very closely together. and so what chairman camp is planning on doing through lots of hearings and he's planning on going down the legislative path, is broadening the tax base, lowering the rates to a condensed rate structure with a top rate of 25% for both corporations and individuals.

now clearly when you broaden the base you have to get rid of some loopholes and deduxes. we're going to foip figure out how to do aum that. the key driving point of tax reform is to not raise taxes on capital, not raise taxes on investments, because we want more of that, we want more capital stock because you get higher wages and job creation, and a broader tax rate for lower rates. it's not inconsistent with the direction the tax commission went. i mean the fiscal commission went. they went a little farther in that they targeted a higher revenue rate than we do, a higher revenue line, meaning revenues as percent of g.d.p. and they had $1 trillion in revenue raises for deficit reduction. we don't propose to raise taxes. we get rid of the obamacare taxes and we assume the tax cuts are made permanent and therefore not imposing the $1.5 trillion tax increase that president obama is proposing. off that have baseline is where we do our tax reform.

guy next to you. sorry, i don't know your name. >> two questions. tomko burn has recently proposed removing an ethanol subsidy. however in the process this would increase revenue and some conservatives have criticized that. in your tax reform, would you be ok with removing -- >> i'm for if a. i've always voted against it. i'm in favor of doing that. look, i have ethanol plants five miles from my house. we do a lot of this. it doesn't work, i don't think it's smart policy. the money didn't typically go to the farmer anyway. so i think in your base broadening exercises, i think it's a smart way to go. that's going to be up to the ways and means committee and if you ask me my opinion and the opinion i'll be giving to the ways and means committee, that's it. >> mr. chairman, congratulations on a lot of hard work, this has been a lot of months. i'm patrick wilson. during the worst part of the

economic crisis, we've just eamericaed from, my company -- emerged from, companies invested deeply in research and development because we know that even in the hard times you have to have the research and the science. i'm wondering specifically for us in this budget plan, the budget blueprint, what role do you see for the continued federal investment in basic research? >> the tick r&d credit or --? >> in basic research. >> so on the tax side, again, i hate to pull a camp, but that's chairman camp and the ways and means will decide the makeup of what the tax is and which stay and which go. on the spending side, we're going after corporate welfare. we're going after applied research and we're sticking with basic research. so we believe that there is a role for basic scientific research but the applied research is basically the government out there picking winners and losers. they don't pick very well. and that's the kind of spending we don't think the government should be in the business of.

jim. sorry, i'll go over here. i apologize. >> are you counting on increased revenues for domestic oil and gas production? >> we are. we do get increased revenues from -- we basically go -- open up the o.c.s., alaska fields, the eastern rockies, and we do get lease-based bonus, lease bonuses. royalties don't come in until outside of a 10-year window because c.b.o. projects that it does take time. we get lease bonuses up front and assume royalties. bearded guy. >> a few people had their hands up. >> charlie mead. have you begun your own plan to address social security reform or is it just waiting on others' proposals? >> we're going to be putting out plans in the future. i've had social security bill

every session of congress since i got to congress in 1998. what we are trying to do, and this is an area where i really do think there's a shot at some bipartisan agreement. so we're trying to set the table for that. we're trying to put in place a process that requires, you know, harry reid to own up to the fact that we do have a problem, that requirements -- requires the president to submit a plan and then many of us are going to be submitting a plan. we're talking amongst ourselves in the budget committee about getting behind somebody's plan. but i do in fact plan on working on that. >> why in this budget proposal you didn't put forward an -- >> we went back and forth on this. we thought if we put one out there it would be too attempting for the -- tempting for the democrats to attack and that would set us away from coming together and talk about it. we decided to do this trigger, not unlike the old medicaid trigger, that when the trustees certified there was a problem in social security, which there is, that requires submission of plans to come to the table with fast-tracked procedures in congress to act on it.

so we just believe that this probably gives us the best opportunity and chance to get a bipartisan agreement on social security. look, a, it is insolvent. b, we need to fix it. the sooner do you the better off it is. the deeper the hole we dig, the more we delay. but, c, on health care we're worlds apart. we don't want government or health care. that's what obamacare does in my opinion. we put specific clear proposals and examples of how we would do it differently. but in social security i do believe that there's an opportunity to come together on it. that's why we're trying to advance that with this type of proposal. she's bringing you a mike. >> phillip from the "washington examiner." just oned medicare proposals, -- just on the medicare proposals. two things. first of all, you've made a point of drawing a distinction between vouchers and premium supports. now, while i get the mechanical

difference that they'd be going, they there wouldn't be a vouch that are people would then purchase insurance with. it would go to the plans that they choose. but those are the mechanical difference. it's hard to see what the affect of economic difference would be. >> it achieves a similar scoring result. >> so they achieve the same kind of savings path. my road map does have vouchers. but i worked with someone who was the director in the clinton administration, i think she was fica chair of the fed as well. she and i were the chairs of the health care task force and the commission and we agreed on a structure which is not the voucher structure but the premium support structure. so it mechanically works a lot different and c.b.o. calls it not a voucher but premium support. the whole point is it works more like programs people are already familiar with. it works like the part d benefits seniors are familiar with, it works like the federal

health -- employee health benefits, and it's important to make these distinctions, i think, so people don't, you know, basically, inaccurately or incorrectly try and tell us what we're doing or describe our plans. but from a budget savings standpoint, from a reliability of getting the savings, going forward, achieves the same result. >> the roadmap that you mentioned also includes health care reforms which this doesn't include comprehensive health care reforms. could you talk about how if we still have a health care system with the current tax code which, you know, people getting their health insurance through their employers, how that hinders the ability for the -- >> exactly. sure. everybody got that? we don't -- we are planning on moving through commerce and ways and means later on, our full replacement legislation on health care. we haven't come together on finishing that yet. so that's why you have health

care for medicaid, health care for the over 65 population reformed in here, but at the end of the day, and we have liability reform and a lot of other things in here, at the end of the day it's my personal view and tomko burn and i are going to be working on our legislation together, i believe that the tax ex clues is one of the drivers of health inflation. a, b, you're subsidizing the wrong people. you're in the highest tax bracket, you're the biggest subsidy. that's not the people who have a hard time getting insurance. we need to customize, more importantly, we need to give people individual choice and disconnect the tax benefit from your job and reconnect it to the individual so you have that tax benefit wherever you go, regardless of how you get your health insurance. i think that's the best way to reform health care, to go at the root cause of health inflation and get the consumer in the marketplace. look, the question with health care going forward is either health care's going to be run by 30,000 bureaucrats in washington, with command and control and price controls, or

300 million americans acting as consumers, demanding performance and competition among doctors, hospitals and ensures business. the reason i can see that you're inclined is because i got lacic surgery 11 years ago. otherwise i wouldn't. and i paid about $2,000 for -- no, i paid more than that. i paid $4,000 for lacic surgery in the year 2000. it's now about $1,600 and they've revolutionized this laser three times since then, so it's a better procedure. why is that? it's an out of pocket cost. it's something that has market pressure. so don't tell us, i know you're not telling us, people shouldn't tell us that health care is immune from free market principles. what we want to do with health care is apply those free market principles, choice, competition, transparency and price and quality so that people can actually act on those things and we can drive innovation, productivity improvements and performance in health care and that to me is the way to reform health care, not turn it over to a bunch of bureaucrats and have

them tell us how we get our health care. >> your budget says that repealing the health care law will save more than $1 trillion and the c.b.o. as you know says it will cost more than $2 billion. how do you reconcile that? >> we retain the medicare savings and instead of double counting the medicare savings, obamacare does that, it raises medicare to pay for another government program. we end the raid of the medicare program and we reapply those savings to medicare to advance its solvency. doing that combined with eliminating all the obamacare spending gets you the number i'm talking about. we also -- but we do repeal the ipab. that's the price control mechanism that they put in medicare which basically i think ends up rationing care. >> hi, jennifer pelcher. founder of militaryoneclick.com.

thank you for prioritizing the military budget in your proposal. if you don't mind if i digress for one minute, military families are flooding our site concerned about the government shutdown and the bill that was proposed on friday. you can clarify or give us an update for military families? >> what we in the house are -- i can speak to the house. don't ask me to speak for the senate. what they say in the house is, you know, the democrats are adversaries, the senate's our enemy. inside joke, i guess. [laughter] we are worried about this because of all the people who earn a shutdown, you don't want to be affected, are the spouses and the families of our fighting men and women over in afghanistan, iraq and other places. so the bill we're bringing to the floor guarantees that they keep getting paid while we cut spending. this will be our third bill we will have passed to prevent a government shutdown and get some savings. the senate hasn't done one yet. so it's been 44, 45 days since

we've passed our first bill, nothing has come from the senate to prevent a government shutdown. so if you're looking at who's by their action moving us toward a government shutdown, it's the senate democrats, not the republicans in the house, who are simply trying to get savings. >> "milwaukee journal sentinel" are you confident you have a consensus in the republican caucus for the medicare changes or have individual republicans expressed any reservations to you about those proposals? >> i have done, i don't know, 30 listening sessions with our caucus members in groups of eight to 10 people, going through all of these specifics. going through our fiscal situation, the driver of our debt. the biggest is our medicare program and walking through how these changes occur. i think once somebody understands the true nature of our fiscal peril, of our fiscal problem, and the kinds of things that are needed to fix it, i think they're onboard.

so i don't -- i'm not worried about our caucus, we did this in convert with the authorizers. dave camp is the authorizer in question here. and, look, it all comes down to this. either you fix this problem now where you can guarantee people who have already organized their lives around these programs get what they have coming to them, or you take the president's path which is do nothing, punt, duck, kick the can down the road and then we have a debt crisis and then it's pain for everybody. then you do start cutting seniors. so the question here is not if we reform medicare, the question is when and how we reform medicare and by reforming medicare now you save medicare. spending goes up every single year in this budget. doesn't go up as fast as the current path because that's what destroys it. do we save these programs now by engaging in budget reform that preempts a debt crisis, that gets the situation under control and gets this economy growing, or do we just worry about

politics, do we worry about the next election and then by doing so kick the can down the road only to wake up one day and see a real problem where you have to do indiscriminant cuts to everybody, including senior citizens? we don't want to have european austerity in this country which is a debt crisis fueled cut to current seniors, taxes to slow us down. that is our future if we don't stop it. that's why we want want to preempt it. that's why members of congress who understand this believe that the smart, best thing to do, the compassionate and humane thing to do, is fix this now in our terms, in a gradual, sensible way, than punting and seeing more pain later. the guy next to craig. >> chuck. on the point you just made, congressman, as you were speaking this morning, congressman israel just issued a press release claiming that you're essentially retaining giveaways to the oil companies and tax breaks for the ultra wealthy before forcing seniors to clip coupons if they need to

see a doctor. and i -- >> i don't even know what to say about that. >> the broader question is, do you think the ground has been prepared by republicans for this coming debate? >> so, chris israel or steve israel is the head of the democratic campaign committee. he's in charge of their re-election effort, of their political machine. and here's the deal. is this a political weapon? of course it is. but you have to say things like that, which are distortions and demagogueries, no two ways about it, in order to score these kinds of political points. you know, shame on them for doing it. here's the decision we had to make. knowing that we have this crisis in our country and knowing that if we go out and try and fix it we will give our political adversaries a weapon to use against us, because we know our political adversaries will demagogue and distort it, and republican does this to democrats, too, we don't have these halos over our head, but should we let that deter news is no. here's the way i look at.

it i just said this in my last thing, the worst experience i've had in congress was the crash of 2008. the economic crash. we didn't see it coming. i mean, i remember sitting in those meet wgs ben bernanke and paulson talking about hundreds of banks going down and all of that stuff. and out of that crisis management came really ugly legislation, tarp. let me ask it this way. what if your congressman and your president knew that that was coming? remember, this costs people to lose trillions in wealth, millions of jobs were lost, we're still trying to recover from it, but what if your representative in congress and your president saw it coming? knew why it was coming? knew what the cause of it was? knew it in enough time to prevent it from happening and knew what he needed to do it from happening but chose not to do so? because he was worried about politics? because he was worried about the press release that was going to come from the democratic congressional campaign

committee? what would you think of him? i mean, think about this. it's wrong. [applause] this is the most predictable economic crisis we've ever had in this country. we owe it to our countrymen and -- the women and men in this country to fix this problem while it's still fixable. and so shame on people who want to demagogue and politicize this. but i think this country's better than that. and i personally believe from representing a district that went from clinton, gore to obama, that americans are ready for honest talk. they're ready to be spoken to like adults. they're ready for a fact-based conversation without budget gimmicks, accounting tricks and all of the rest, about what is really needed to save this country. and what this plan shows you is that this country can still be saved. that the idea of this country can still be preserved and i personally believe that the country's ready for that.

they'll do that no matter what. [applause] >> i'm peter shutly from brookings and thank you very much for speaking and i commend you for your efforts to put these serious issues on the agenda. i hope we have really -- >> i know you're here. >> here's my question. what i see missing is individual members of congress, both houses, both parties, willing to tell their constituents they're going to have to give up programs they like. too many people think these cuts aren't going to hurt, it's just through elimination of waste, fraud and abuse, it will be easy and cheap. but leaders like members of congress are going to have to tell their constituents, that's not possible. and i don't see any member of congress telling their voters, we got to eliminate a program you like.

>> we eliminate a whole bunch. so we're about to do that. look, we've got three indiana representatives on house budget committee. indiana is a big farm state. we're reforming agricultural subsidies in this. the leaders in our committee on this are these indiana people, stutzman is a farm, who just got elected to congress. he's taking the lead on doing ag reform, reforming direct payments, crop insurance, so, yes, we've got people in congress now who are not only ready and willing to do that, who are doing that. so we're doing that. you're right. we have no choice. guy in the back. the microphone people, i'm making them work. sorry. i got to go vote pretty soon. they'll yank me soon. >> mike from the "weekly standard." you said frequently, you said it today, that the president's not leading on this and i assume that you think after today he's going to continue to not lead on it. so what do you do in the next year and a half, at least, with

these ideas and with this budget and what's the plan thereafter? >> should he spend more time preparing people for this? we don't have that time. the budget is due and we're going to do a budget. and so let's put the president and the democrats aside. let's assume they're going to use this as a political weapon. let's assume that. our job, i think, then is to offer the country a choice. you know, what do you want? at least let's give the country a choice. i mean, look at the path we're on. we're on a debt crisis path. we're on a path where the government goes from 20% of g.d.p. to 40%, then 60% of g.d. . we are on a path where our debt goes from about 68% of g.d.p. to 800% of g.d.p. over the three generation window. i ask c.b.o. to run the model going out and they told me that their computer stimulation crashes in 2037. because c.b.o. can't conceive of

any way in which the economy can continue past the year 2037 because of debt burdens. so we have to go out and give the country a choice. we know the path the president's put the country on, it's a path that i fundamentally believe transforms this country into something it was never designed to be, into a cradle the grave social well stare state. we are offering a country that is true to its country's founding principles, that is prosperous, that is progrowth, that lives within its means, that is an opportunity society with a sound resill yent safety net and that's the choice we're going to give people. and so at least the country will get to choose what country they want for the 21st century. mark my words. the next two to three to four years, we will decide what america's going to be for the 21st century. the decisions we make right now have enormous consequences going forward for not just my x generation but my children's generation and their children and we will put those decisions

in place and they will ripple through and determine what kind of country we're going to be and so i just feel that we have a moral obligation to our country and our constituents to at least give them a choice. so they can choose. and so if we don't get agreements in the intervening time, because of politics or whatever, at least in 2012 they'll have a real choice. one last one, i guess. i have to go vote. ok. he took it from you. but, hey. you guys want to fight over each other. rock, paper scissor, something like that. >> do you regret your vote on tarp? >> do i what? >> do you regret your vote? >> no, obviously i hate tarp, it was a bad episode. i don't regret it because i do believe we were probably on the cusp of deflationary spiral. it's two tune known and i believe if we went into a deflationary spiral we would have seen much, much more pain and suffering. we would have seen lots of business goes down, lots of banks go down, we would have seen a lot more job losses. so i do believe it was

necessary. in that panic poment we are in, and i think -- moment we are in, and i think the treasury and the fed did contribute to the panic, i think in the moment we are in, it had to pass to seize a deflationary spiral from taking place. now was it administered correctly or the way we intended it to? no. that's why we tried to cut it off halfway through. but by then the democrats ran the place and turned it into a slush fund. so. thank you, everybody. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> this year's student cam competition asked students from across the country to consider washington, d.c., through their lens.

today's third prize winner addressed an issue that better helped them understand the role of the federal government. >> there's new opportunities every day. there's no parents telling what you time to get into bed and what to do. you got your own place to stay and it's just the way you like it. you can hang around campus all day long and do whatever you want. oh, and not to mention you don't have to worry about anyone paying for that health insurance anymore. well, mie let's just say it's quite contrary. the us inance of opportunity doesn't -- [inaudible] it includes dangers. you could get hurt at any moment, in a car wreck, in an attack or just from an accident. if you don't have health insurance, anything can turn into a costly trip to the doctor's office or the emergency room. many students nationwide have already faced this problem and it's only growing.

in fact, one out of every five college students is uninsured. our government has knowledge of this. thus the health care reform bill was born. >> if you don't have insurance, or if you're about to graduate, you're not sure what your next job is going to be or there's more gap between getting a job with insurance, all new plans and some current ones will allow you to save on your parents' insurance policy until you're 26 years old. >> perhaps with all this newfound independence, college students cannot be independent on their parents anymore. but one thing parents can provide, protection from industries, illnesses through their health insurance. the federal government recognizes that students in our community past age 21 were dropped off of their parents' plan. with this knowledge, they extended this limit to age 26. >> health care reform, due to the fact that dependence now can

be covers on their parents' insurance up until age 26. if they're enrolled? school, not enrolled in school -- if they're enrolled in school or not enrolled in school, there were all these rules, now there are not. so a lot of students can be covered under the parents' insurance that could not before. >> i think the fact that college students can stay on their parents' insurance up to the age of 26, even if they graduate, is a big change. because it used to be as soon as you graduated, you no longer were allowed to be on your parents' health insurance. well, a lot of people it takes a little bit of time to get settled in a job after they graduate, if they're even able to find one, and to getting health insurance. so now we no longer have that gap. >> this is probably the most significant in college students' lives. >> the new 26, i can be on my parents' until i'm 26. so it's affecting my financially

in i don't have to pay for insurance right now. i'm working a job while i'm in graduate school to pay for school. i don't have to worry about paying for health care number because i can focus on more important issues such as paying for graduate school. >> not only does it help them when they're students but also after graduation when looking for their first job. >> tens of thousands of uninsured americans with a pre-existing condition and parents with children who have a pre-existing condition will finally be able to purchase the coverage they need. >> starting on september 23, insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to a child because they have a pre-existing medical condition. >> along with the parents' plan amendment comes another supported addition in the bill. this is the restriction of health insurance companies turning away or not covering someone with a pre-existing condition. this amendment is already in effect for kids, it should be put into place for adults in thirst. the health care reform also

impacts college students from individual mandates. >> in 2014 there is a requirement that everybody in the united states has to have health insurance. >> that's going to be a major change. is that everyone will be required to have health care insurance and that will have a significant impact on college students. >> the individual mandate makes a require you to have health insurance. if you do not meet this requirement you have to pay a penalty of either $750 or 2% of your income. the greater of the two. many have remember referred to this amendment as unconstitutional and questioned its legality. >> i understand the basic provisions of the act, i understand it was an act that probably to a great extent many marines -- americans themselves did not favor. certainly other leaders decided they would pass it understanding the opposition. >> many americans have voiced their opinions on this, including a federal judge. >> what did he do was rule that

the so-called individual mandate is unconstitutional. >> constitutional or not, the individual mandate is something that may benefit college students in the long run. >> young adults, particularly in their 0s, who maybe for affordability reasons, maybe because of this sense of invincibility, well, generally young folks aren't sick, they don't really see the need for health insurance, so a lot of college students and a little bit older go without health care insurance. and it's quite a gamble. a lot of times they don't use a lot of health care but when they do use health care, oftentimes it's because of very serious or catastrophic, particularly accidents. >> one of the many purposes of the health care reform was to lower costs for those especially in need of financial aid. this could assist numerous college students. >> i think we all know the health care law is something that needs to be done to

restrain that. >> and in a couple years, after we set the whole thing up, millions of families and small business owners, they're going to have more choice, more competition and they're going to finally be able to purchase all the affordable care and get a better deal. >> although health care reform is designed to help, it does come with some downfalls. one of these downfalls is having to pay for other people's insurance. >> it was estimated and that's what they're trying to deal with in congress, that we would pay an average of 8% to 10% additional federal income tax to pay for folks that didn't have insurance. so it would further drive the economy down. >> the doctor went on to say that with over 2,300 pages of legislation, most americans are confused on what is actually in this bill. >> nobody know what's in the bill. as you know. nobody knows what's in the bill. they admitted that in congress. people voted on it. so that's what's giving us such a hard time.

what's the price tag going to be? nobody knows. >> the health care reform bill has some positives and negatives. by early 2011 -- [inaudible] >> health care reform -- [inaudible] >> we believe that the health care reform does have a few flops but is a good idea with good intentions that will provide college students better access to health care as well as better coverage. >> this will directly affect us -- [inaudible] . >> go to studentcam.org to watch all the winning videos. and continue the conversation about today's documentary at our facebook and twitter pages. >> today a federal appeals court dismissed a lawsuit brought by verizon and meritpcs against the f.c.c.'s new net neutrality rules. this comes on the same daw the house members took up a measure to disapprove the new rules regulating internet and

broadband access. this debate is an hour. the house approved debate rules for the measure would could come up later this week. gentleman from georgia is ecognized for on >> thank you, mr. speaker. nk yo speaker. for the purposes of debate only, i yield 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis. pending which, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wood yawl: during this debate, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only. i ask that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. woodall: what we have is the congressional review act, an act passed by the republican congress and president clinton that gives congress an opportunity to review the burdens imposed -- regulations imposed by the executive branch and say do we want it or do we

not. today that resolution is the net neutrality law, the rule disapproves of the f.c.c. rule concerning that neutrality on the basis that congress did not authorize the f.c.c. to regulate in this area. according to a d.c. circuit court decision in april of last year, the f.c.c. failed to demonstrate that it had the authority to regulate the internet network management. until such time as the f.c.c. is given that authority by this congress, we must reject any rules that it promulgates in this area. we'll hear a lot today in the underlying resolution about the effective compromise that was crafted by the f.c.c. we'll hear a lot about the light touch that was used by the f.c.c. to wade into this area. but mr. speaker, if you don't have the authority to do it you don't have the authority to do it. it is congress' responsibility to delegate that authority.

if folks like the underlying rule proposed by the f.c.c., they're welcome to bring that back as a congressional resolution this bill today is about congressional prerogative. will we, or will we not, stand up to an executive branch that does not have the authority to regulate? we've done a sad job in this congress in years past, mr. speaker, of providing that oversight responsibility. republicans had the responsibility of providing oversight to the bush administration and we didn't always live up to that measure. democrats have the ability to provide oversight and they haven't always lived up to that example. we have the cubt today to begin that step forward. until congress acts to delegate that responsibility, the internet should continue as the alway .

because that's the right way to do things but what i would really prefer is that you bring one bill with one idea and have an up or down vote for all the world to see, well, mr. speakering that's exactly the call we have responded to today, a simple bill, one page long that says the f.c.c. does not have the congressional -- the delegated congressional authority to act in this area

and as such the regulation shall be null and void. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserve the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: this is one-page long and it's a terrible bill one page long and i'll tell you why. with our economy only beginning to recover, i believe this rule and the underlying rule will gel one of the greatest sources of job creation in america, the internet. over the past 15 years it's created three million jobs, according to hamilton consultants. many americans have full or part-time jobs on ebay alone. yet the majority brings before legislation that will harm the open internet. i can speak to this with some degree of authority. before i came to congress i created over 300 jobs of myself by finding several internet-related company.

my first internet company was an internet service provider on the other end of this equation so i have good experience from the commerce side as well as the access side which i bring to this debate. and i have long supported open access to the internet and continue to support net neutrality. let me bring this close to home. when i started a flower company, proflowers.com, back in the late 1990's, we offered a supply chain solution. we brought fresher flowers to people at beater price by allowing consumers to buy flowers directly from growers. now, we were up against several legacy companies. companies like f.t.d. and 1-800-flowers. we believe and argued in the marketplace was a less efficient distribution model. now, had there not been a de facto net neutrality at that point it would be very difficult for a new company to break in because you would have had the incumbent leaders in the marketplace buying the access through the broadband

connections, much as companies will pay slotting fees to get into grocery stores, some book publishers pay fees to be out on the open table. the big difference is we have a robust distribution. with regard to broadband access, over 70% of the residents of this country live in areas with only one or two broadband providers. all of the dynamism, and i have not heard this disputed, even by the chairman of the subcommittee who testified before us yesterday, really, the dynamism, the job growth on the internet comes from the content and application side. there aren't legitimate economic situations on the bandwidth side. both debating wireless and wire bandwidth need to have a return on calculus, but there is a content-driven internet that drives the usage that leads people to pay more for higher speed access to the internet. now the f.c.c. has done an

exemplary job with these rules. they have actually received buy-in from all of the major players with regard to this matter. content providers, content aggregators, search engines and, yes, even only the broadband access side, most of the major broadband providers have supported these regulations as well. so they've done an excellent job. i realize what they first put out there, many people were concerned with. they then did their job as they were told to by congressional statute, specifically which authorized them to do this. they listened to all parties and they revised their net neutrality regulations so i think we can all be proud as americans and we can all be proud of as users of the internet. now, just to be clear how they hit their mark. i know yesterday in committee the chairman mentioned -- the chairman of the subcommittee mentioned that he thought that some of the broadband providers were coerced into supporting the protocol standard before the f.c.c.

i don't know enough to dispute that enough, but i will tell you is i then got third party testimony which i think is -- the way the investment banking sector works is they have analysts who really cover different stocks, cover different sectors and they inform people about the impact of market regulations on that sector. what i have from the bank of america and merrill lynch analysts, it says the agreement, the f.c.c.'s net neutrality provisions, is consistent with our view that the regulatory overhang has been eliminated from telecom and cable stocks. now, let me elaborate. what that means, net neutrality regulatory overhang, there was fear among the analysts covering the telecom sectors that the obama administration would do something overarching with net neutrality. however, the f.c.c. did their job and that fear has been eliminated. there is now no market overhang on companies in this sector and they are no longer concerned that the regulations are

overarching. let me go to goldman sachs' analyst fathers december of last year. the rules stuck largely as what was exacted and will be viewed as a light touch. let in go to raymond james. we are glad that the staff is making this innocuous by placing official rules by what is being done by the industry under a no regulations scenario. all this rule does is preserve the status quo. why is this important? absent this there could be a major shift in power on the internet to the broadband providers from the content providers. the internet historically, again, a wonderful innovation to man kinde, allows anybody with a great -- mankind, allows anything with a server to be linged up from their garbage, the very same as a major corporation that spends $100 million launching a website. and they compete in the marketplace with ideas. now there have been -- some people say, have there ever been any instance where a provider has used tiered access

or has censored anything? there has been some. in 2005 madison river communication blocked something on their d.s.l. cingular blocked paypal after contracting with another online payment service. now, this is a perfect example of why we need to keep the competition on the provider side. you can lead the consumers with access with presumably a less efficient payment service if they would not select given their own prerogative because it is locked in through some sort of slotting fee or some arrangement under the same capital structure as an access provider. so this rule is actually critical to continue to operate a free and open internet. that's why the f.c.c. moved forward with explicit permission from congress with rules of this issue. there were open process and got buy-in from all major parties including internet service providers.

there are many on the left that wish the rule went further. yes, there might be some in business that prefers there were no rules at all. the vast majority of the business community strongly supports the consensus rules that the f.c.c. came out with. of those commenting on the proposed rule before the f.c.c., well over 90% supported the commission's effort and over 130 organizations support the proposed rule and oppose this legislation, including groups like the american library association, the free press, league of latin american citizens, communication workers of america and the vast majority of internet-related companies. i also want to emphasize that there's been a number of faith-based groups that have weighed in. one of the largest is the conference of catholic bishops, representing millions of american catholics who weighed in. the internet is open to any speaker, commercial and noncommercial, whether or not the speech is connected financially to the company providing internet access or whether it is popular or

prophetic. there is legitimate fear. one between the nonprofit and religious community in general. their content would receive a lower tier because they are not necessarily able to pay the same slotting fees or access that a for-profit commercial provider would do. your webpage from nike might load faster than your webpage from the catholic church because if there was tiered access who would be likely to pay for the access? and there is political and religious censorship of the internet. you could have a provider that would say, you know what, i like obama so i'm going to block access to tea party sites or slow them down from -- through our broadband access. now, again, in a market with compete dynamism where there is a lot of competition and every american can choose broadband providers, that would be less problematic. where we have a situation where over 70% of americans only have one or two choices for broadband access, there's

historically been broad support from both sides of the aisle for the no blocking rule which simply states that broadband providers cannot block lawful content. it's the equivalent of telling the postal service they can deliver or not deliver your mail based on whether they agree or disagree with the content. the carriers of the internet itself is one cohesive entity. what a wonder 68 entity of mankind the fact that you can plug into a wide breath of information on the internet. i also want to refute the argument that there is no or should there be any government regulation of the internet. i actually have several pages of government regulation of the internet and i'd like to submit it without any objection. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. polis: including, of course, the complex of intellectual property and intellectual property enforcement, to ensure that the internet is not used as a medium to steal the properties of others. we go on and on about

ecommerce, a number of laws designed to protect our privacy, protect us from abuse and protect us from security breaches with regard to viruses. this is another dimension to protect the internet being broken apart by a series of tiered pipelines rather than one cohesive internet. the absence of any net neutrality regime would have corporate america censors the america like china censors the internet. you -- we risk the same potential here. if you don't -- if the broadband actors play a critical role, and i want to make sure their concerns are balanced, they get their return on investment. we have a quote from the at&t executive who did it -- who said they can use the 10 to 15-year time frame with regard to broadband infrastructure.

even comcast has called the new rules workable balance between the marketplace and carefully crafted limited rules can provide to ensure that internet freedom and openness are preserved. i'd further argue that a free and open internet is in the interest of the broadband providers themselves. so not only is it not necessarily the case that they agree to it under dueress, they realize what drives internet access would drive people to a faster connection is the very vibrancy in the marketplace that net neutrality reserves. the question is why are we hear debating something that is thoughtful, that is buying in from all sides of the debate? i had a tough time figuring it out even in our committee, the examination yesterday. the reason we are here is because of those opposed from the more overarching rules that were originally proposed by the f.c.c. this feared takeover of the

internet didn't occur, overarching rules didn't occur, most of the broadband providers support the direction of the f.c.c. and yet under the legislation that we'll consider today, the open internet rule and repeal of it will provide more uncertainty to investors. they again not know what's going to occur. the investment bankers will say there is uncertainty, hurting the valuation of the very broadband stocks that the majority is claiming to do this for the benefit of. market analysis have found that the new open internet rule removes the overhang. it's a light touch and this throws a monkey wrench into the market mechanisms at a critical time of our recovery and job creation. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, at this time i'm proud to yield two minutes to a the gentlelady from the committee of jurisdiction, the gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. blackburn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. if my colleague across the aisle is having a tough time figuring this out, i think we can probably help with that explanation. first of all, if you like the

internet that you have, we are saying we want you to keep it. mr. speaker, there has been no market failure. over 80% of all the americans are pleased with the internet service that they have. what they do not want to see is the obama administration step in in front of these internet service providers and say, we, the government, are here to change your internet. we're here to take control of your internet. and that is exactly what net neutrality would do. net neutrality is the federal government stepping in and saying we're going to come first, we're going to assign priority and value to content. it basically is the fairness doctrine for the internet. as i said, there has been no market failure and there is no need for this government overreach. so many are saying why do this. it's one of those issues of

power and control. government wanting to dictate what speed you will have, how often you will be on, the type internet service you will have, being able to control that. what the f.c.c. did after congress left them, mind you, during christmas week what they did was step in and bring uncertainty to the marketplace. they said, we are going to put ourselves, the government in control of the internet. ever this has happened. also in their net neutrality order, if you read paragraph 84, what it does is bring an incredible amount of uncertainty to the innovative community and economy that our jobs growth will be based on because what it says to innovators is says, look if you want -- mr. woodall: i yield an

additional minute. mrs. blackburn: if you want to have a new usage for a web-based service for the internet a ply to the f.c.c. first because if you don't, we can step in and require you to come make application to us. if you want to talk about a killing effect, a killing effect on all our high-tech innovation, our medical innovation, with our telemedicine concept, health i.t. concepts, paragraph 84 found in the net neutrality order that was brought forward on a 3-2 vote by the obama administration, i would encourage individuals to look at that. because it will do more to squelch jobs growth and to pull back innovation than any other action in this administration,

with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: it's hard to know where to begin in refuting the comments of my friend from tennessee. one view was that this is a fairness doctrine for the internet, it's some sort of government involvement with the internet, quite the contrary is true. the fairness doctrine, i was an awareness -- an original co-sponsor that would have prevented the administration from moving forward with the fairness doctrine, net neutrality is moving forward with the market ideas the fairness doctrine is contrary to. if we don't have a net neutrality rule, we risk the

internet becoming tiered -- tyred in structure. -- tiered in structure. it is net neutrality that will preserve the internet as it is. i agree that 80% of the people are happy with their access, i hope it's even higher. mrs. blackburn: if the gentleman will yield. mr. polis: i yield for a moment. mrs. blackburn: any time you allow the federal government to step into a process where they have not been involved in a process. mr. polis: reclaiming my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman controls the time. mr. polis: with regards to the postal service would the gentlelady oppose an effort to say that the postal service can decide which mail to deliver

based on which political candidates their unions support? would the gentlelady say it would be ok for the postal service to do that. mrs. blackburn: the gentleman knows that's not relevant to the discussion we're having here. what we're talking about is the fairness doctrine. mr. polis: reclaiming my time. mrs. blackburn: if the gentleman will focus on the issue -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. mr. polis: the fairness doctrine is something i will oppose and the fairness doctrine is consistent with the approach of the gentlelady to the internet. by having net neutrality in place, we prevent fairness doctrine or selective allowance of content to consumers of the internet. the structure is to ensure that everyone has access to putting content on the internet in the same way and that won't be discriminated against based on ideology or considerations. mrs. blackburn: if we snelt --

if the gentleman will yield, any time you give the government the ability to assign authority and value, they are inserted in the process. they wail precede the the ability of the market providers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will su spend. mr. polis: the absence of the net neutrality regime would be the government assigning value as gate keepers and allowing them to provide what kind of internet they intend to serb up to their users. i will not yield further. we could continue this colloquy on your own time. i would like to add that under the legislation we consider today, the open internet rule will add the certainty to investors and companies we need and predictability in our marketplace to allow companies to continue to grow and invest in job growth.

it strikes a balance and it solves a real issue. some on the other side will say, this could be an issue in the future but it hasen arisen. the rules enshrine in place the very internet, the die namism, the ideology -- the dynanism, the idea roling the gentlelady says she wants to preserve. i.s.p.a.'s -- i.s.p.'s have blocked voice other i.s.p. service, they've blocked paypal in favor of other financial transaction companies that might have economic relationships with them. i believe strongly in internet, internet as an achievement for mankind, internet that net neutrality will help preserve for our generation and the next and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to another gentleman from the committee, mr. terry.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. terry: i rise in favor of this rule to block the f.c.c. from regulating the internet. i thought the exchange between the gentleman from colorado and the good lady from tennessee was very telling. because right now the marketplace controls the internet. it is free. i call it wild, wild in its applications. now what we're -- what the government is trying to do now in the words of ed marquee during our hearing on this was -- of ed markey during our hearing on this was, quote, we need to regulate the internet to keep it unregulated. i don't get that. but it is kind of the thought from the left side of the aisle that you have to regulate it in order to prevent anything that they may disagree with.

so what we have here is an instance where now the freedoms of the internet and the marketplace driving it now have to be under a regulatory scheme decided by a group of appointees of the president. if not to be free, it has to be built in relation to their image. listen to his words. it's going to be built on their image. the analogy of communist china regulating the content can't happen today. they talk about politicing these i.s.p.'s will stop us from going to our websites. there have been a handful of those situations. and every time public marketplace chastised them

openly, there were a few times the f.c.c. called up and said you can't do that under the principles that were adopted. can i have an additional minute. mr. woodall: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. terry: so those were resolved by, yeah, a little bit of involvement but the marketplace. now the comparison to communist china here from the gentleman is appropriate when you look at how this measure was implemented. the president campaigned on net neutrality, congress would not authorize it because congress as a whole bipartisanly disagreed with net neutrality giving a regulatory, bureaucratic agency control over the internet versus free market, so since congress wouldn't pass it, they said, we

don't have the authority. they didn't say they don't have the authority but congress never gave them the authority to regulate the internet, so they're just assuming that they're going to take that power away from the people and the marketplace and do it themselves. that is where the analogy to communist china is appropriate. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i would argue that in communist china, the resident there is do not have access to the internet. what they have access to is an internet minus, an internet minus the sites their government deems inappropriate. we risk going down that same route if we don't enshrine in rule or in law net neutrality provisions that ensure there's an open and free internet and that american sit zepps have access to the internet in its entirety, not with any censorship because of economic or religious reasons. i won't yield. one of the simple components of the rule, i'll be happy to

discuss it on your time. one of the simple components of the rule is the no blocking rule. it states simply a broadband provider cannot block lawful content. a provider cannot say, i don't like catholics, i'll block catholic sites. we need to ensure the internet as one entity is available to all americans who buy access. and again, the broadband providers themselves endorse this concept because they truly understand with the fiduciary responsibility of their own share shoulders that the dynamism that makes the internet useful are protected this way.

support for -- a witness the majority brought to capitol hill said i.s.p.'s should be allowed to block lawful content and said it's appropriate because you block the source of the program. if they're tissue if the person violating your acceptable use policy is netflix, you block netflix. you can say, i don't like that you're renting this movie or linking to this news. that's the direction that communist china has gone and that's the direction that america and the global internet will go if we fail to preserve the net neutrality regime that's before us. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. bad all: at this time -- mr. woodall: at this time, i yield to the subcommittee chairman, mr. walton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. walton: i thank the gentleman from the rules committee for his work on this issue.

there are a number of issues i'd like to address, first of all, when it comes to the notion that the f.c.c. -- or let me back up, these area -- carriers that give us the internet might somehow regulate religious speech. it's -- mr. walden: it's interesting to note that the f.c.c. in its own order threatens and pulls out specifically a threat to religious content. paragraph 47, footnote 148, which i'm sure the gentleman from colorado must know about, says a religious organization would be prohibited from creating a specialized internet access service. there is an internet provider out there called kosher net that wanted a special service for those religious subscribers who happen to agree that they don't want to be exposed to things on the internet that they are bound to regard --

mr. polis: would the gentleman yield for a question? mr. walden: i would not. the issue that the f.c.c. points out is that, oh, we -- we're not going to allow that to happen under these rules. you can't have a separate internet provider that's just set up for its own subscribers, that just wants to have a filter on the internet, if you will, for those who want to subscribe to that for their religious beliefs. already you see a government getting involved at the head in. we've seen it in egypt where the government is involved and had a kill switch and turned 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