amendment is raising taxes on the middle class. it could be in here, mr. chairman. but only if it's in here. they go on to say that this amendment could include severe cuts to important programs. i guess in theory it could, but only if it's in here. let's make one thing and one thing ex-trared yourly -- ex-trared your -- extraordinarily clear. this is the president's budget, this is the c.b.o., nonpartisan analysis of what the president gave us, several million tax dollars were preparing, we spent an entire day debating this and examining it in the budget committee. it's not a charade, not a gimmick unless what the president sent us is the same. we are voting on the president's budget. i encourage my democratic friends to support it. personally, i'll be voting against it. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from maryland.

mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. my friend from south carolina wants to play make believe today but the reality is that this is not the president's budget. we have already shown you the president's budget. i yield one minute to the gentlelady from florida, ms. brown. ms. brown: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for the one minute. let me just say one thing. you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all of the time and i can tell you the republican budget is not fooling anybody. i want to talk about one aspect of the president's budget on transportation. . it generates 44,000 jobs. however, the republicans refuse to pass a budget that transportation committee throughout the history have been bipartisan. we have worked together. the republicans and the democrats over in the senate have passed the bill. the republicans refuse to take

up the bill on transportation because for once, you don't want to put the american people back to work. i say again, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: mr. chairman, how much time remains? the chair: the gentleman has 2 3/4 minutes remaining. mr. van hollen: we stand here all we want and play let's pretend. the reality is that the budget before us is not the president's budget. as i indicated earlier. the democratic alternative later takes the framework of the president's budget and adopts some of the policies of the president's budget. we don't accept every single spending proposal or spending cut, which is laid out in great

detail here, but that presents a framework. and i should say to my colleagues, one of the things you would not know from reading this republican version of the president's proposal is that unlike the republican budget, the president's plan does not end the medicare guarantee. it does not extend tax breaks for the highest income americans. it doesn't provide another windfall tax cut by increases taxes on middle-income americans. it doesn't cut the transportation budget by 46% next year at a time when we have high unemployment in the construction industry. the president's budget doesn't do that. the republican budget does do that. we will later present that balanced approach that says in order to tackle our deficits, we have to make some tough cuts.

congress has already made a trillion cuts, we have more cuts. but we should also close some of those special interest tax loopholes for the purpose of reducing the deficit, because if we don't do that, it means we are providing essentially asking nothing of the very wealthy and that means we have to reduce the deficit at the expense of everybody else in america. so let's end the charade and this game of make believe. this is not the president's budget. and unless there are some of our colleagues who want to play fantasy land, i suggest we get down to reality and we are opposing the mulvaney amendment. and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for debate has expired.

thape. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. >> mr. chairman, ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-443. mr. cleaver: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 2 in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. cleaver of missouri. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 597, the gentleman from missouri, mr. cleaver and a member opposed each will control 15 minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from missouri. mr. cleaver: i acknowledge 42 members of the congressional black caucus who endorse this presentation and our task force and f.y. 2013 budget chairs. this budget, mr. chair, itself, is a statement of our beliefs as a nation. it is the way we choose to run government and help the people we serve. our f.y. 2013 federal budget will address the deficit while protecting safety important programs needed by our communities. the priorities are promoting job creation and economic development, providing lifetime educational opportunities, providing access to health care and protecting the right to vote and justice for all americans. we can only make these priorities a reality by sustaining and strengthening the

programs that invest in and protect all americans, whether it is work force investment, unemployment insurance, investment in unemployment, temporary assistance for needy families or with the onslaught of these voter laws across the country, proper funding of the election assistance commission. these programs are vital to national interests because they train our work force, stabilize our economy and provide funding for our cities and states throughout the nation. i understand that now is the time for us as americans to sacrifice in order to protect our children and our children's children. however we struggle to understand how the proposed majority's budget achieves this goal. most recently, the nation's overall unemployment rate has been lowered. however, the african-american

unemployment rate remains double the national average. in order to improve this situation and ensure every american's full recovery, we must make investments for all. government investment in people, infrastructure and innovation can create jobs. over time, the jobs created by these investments pay for themselves and then some. investments allow people to earn, learn, spend and save. cutting programs that assist hard-working americans help families with their most basic needs and maintain our infrastructure and expand educational opportunities and will make unemployment statistics worse. our success is interwould haven in the success of all communities. until we grasp that concept as a nation, we will never see the full potential of the united states of america and for that, i'm truly concerned.

mr. chair, i would like to yield time to the chairman of our committee, bobby scott of virginia. the chair: how much time? mr. cleaver: three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. scott: the congressional black caucus budget is more credible and more responsible alternative than the underlying republican budget. the c.b.c. budget significantly reduces our deficit while increasing economic opportunities and promoting job creation in every corner of our society. great deficit reduction is about making tough choices but the path to fiscal responsibility must not be on the backs of our most vulnerable communities. our budget makes those tough choices but doesn't jeopardyize social security.

the fundamental choice we have to make is the choice between millionaires and medicare. the c.b.c. budget extends the bush-era tax cuts only for the hard-working middle class americans and pays this through tax reform by closing loopholes detering speculation in the stock market, the speculation that created the crisis and the recent gas price increase and millionaires who benefited most from tax cuts and bailouts in the last decade contribute their fair share. with additional revenues, it restores funding that were cut. we cancel the sequester for security and nonsecurity programs. we match the democratic alternative on defense spending. and our budget also makes targeted investments that will create jobs in the short-term,

create transportation and infrastructure projects and ensure our long-term prosperity including an increase in the maximum pell grant to $6,500. and it would cement our foundation of a strong economic recovery and reduce the deficit by $770 billion moreover the next decade than the republican budget as this chart shows. the c.b.c. budget outlines specific recommendations to achieve this goal. the republican budget, on the other hand, simply structs the ways and means committee to find $4 trillion in new revenues and structs the appropriations committee to find spending cuts in the range of almost $1 trillion. in light of the fact that the super committee failed to find $1.2 trillion, it is unlikely how anybody will fill this $5

trillion hole in the republican budget. even if they do, the c.b.c. budget has more in deficit reduction than the republican budget. mr. chairman, there is a clear difference between the republican budget and the c.b.c. budget and that difference is the c.b.c. budget chooses medicare over millionaires and i urge my colleagues to ensure a fairer and more prosperous future for america. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: i seek time in opposition. i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. chairman, i stand in opposition to this budget. i am proud of the fact that we are debating a budget, look over to the other body, united states senate, and you will see it has been years since the united

states senate has discussed the budget and here we are debating a budget, there is a contrast in vision, a contrast in priorities and some issues there is some common ground but other things there is a difficult veeringens in our approach. this raises taxes by more than $6 trillion. let me put it in context what that is. if you spent $1 million a day, every day, it would take you almost 3,000 years to get to $1 trillion. what we have to have is a realizization of the fiscal woes. i didn't create this mess and i'm here to help clean it up. we can't face tens of trillions of dollars in debt because there is a consequence of that. the consequence, raising interest rates, so many things, inflation, as you throw more

money in the marketplace. can you imagine if we didn't have what we have at the end of this year nearly $16 trillion in debt. we are paying $600 million a day in interest on that debt. while i think there is common ground in appreciation of what needs to happen for our kids and investments and future that we need to make, what they would like to do in terms of infrastructure and roads and all these types of things, our military, we are saddled with a $16 trillion debt. we don't have that $600 million a day. we have to pay interest on that. and that's where you see a contrast. what is being proposed here versus what the republicans are offering in their budget, which has passed through the budget committee, they want to spend $5.3 trillion moreover 10 years than what we have proposed. so i stand in opposition to

this. i understand the passion and commitment they have to their agenda and i hope we can applaud here at least in the united states house of representatives we are debating a budget. and with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri. mr. cleaver: i would like to yield three minutes to the woman from wisconsin, ms. moore. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. ms. moore: thank you so much mr. cleaver and thank you, mr. chair. you know, prior to 1994, congress acted to make sure americans had guaranteed support. the american social contract provided retirement security through retirees through social security, health coverage for elders with medicare, dignified for the infirmed and disabled and success tinance for families. in 1994 on a bipartisan basis

this body breached the social security act contract with the people, quote, unquote, ended welfare as we know it. now this republican budget says that that is a model for what this budget should do. it recalls that victory, and i quote from the narrative under the path to prosperity, blueprint for american renewal, this budget completes the successful work of transforming welfare that reforming other areas of america's safety net to ensure that welfare does not entrap americans into a lives of dependency. unquote. we have heard on this floor we want to make sure that the safety net does not become a hammock. in other words, medicare and medicare recipients are now

welfare recipients. and what this budget does is it ends the guarantee of welfare for retirees into a voucher program and cuts $30 billion. program medicaid, it is now a welfare program and grandma who is in a nursing home is a welfare recipient who is laying in a hammock and you cut $810 billion out of that fund over the next decade. another entitlement program, food stamps would serve 45 million people during this recession, half of all americans are now poor. you are going to mend that entitlement program by cutting $134 billion out over the next decade. the

the budget rejects the social security act and renews that contract with american, it rejects the 6 % of the republican budget that cuts 5.3 trillion delsh that cuts $5. trillion, 65% of it taken from those most vulnerable yet provides deficit reduction of $3.4 trillion over a 10-year period of time. yes, we do have different priorities. we prioritize retire yeses, elleder -- retirees, elders, disabled and infirm. i yield back. mr. cleaver: may i inquire as to the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman has six minutes remaining. mr. cleaver: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from utah. >> i yield two minutes to the

gentleman from new york, mr. hanna. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hanna: i'm speaking on the previous offer big mr. mulvaney. i'd like to rise and speak in opposition to the administration's proposed 2013 budget plan. i'd like to speak about one particular issue of concern. despite the administration's emphasizing of the importance of cybersecurity, and the need to retain our technological edge this budget presents a stark contradiction to these priorities. key program areas that are essential to maintaining our nation's 21st defense initiative have been unreasonably slashed in this proposal. for example, the air force's science and technology cyberfunding has been cut 17%, over $1 billion has been put from the -- cut from the air force's total funding level for research, development, testing and evaluation programs. i can personally test to the innovative accomplishments

produced by the air force research labs such as rome lab in rome, new york. for instance, the air force research labs for the first to institute computer network attack and exploitation as a formal science and technology discipline. secretary panetta has warned that a cyberattack could very well be the next parole harbor our in addition -- pearl harbor our nation confronts. both our commercial enterprises and our government have become dependent on information technology which makes it critical we protect our networks. we can't say one thing and do another when it comes to prioritizing our 21st century cyberdefenses. i urge my colleagues to support our national security by voting against this budget plan and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back.

mr. chaffetz: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from missouri. mr. cleaver: i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from the virgin islands, dr. ton in a christensen. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. christensen: i rise in strong support of the congressional black caucus budget, which is fiscally responsible and restores america's promise and informses in our future. as a physician and chair of the health brain trust i'm particularly pleased with the investment we make in health. it provides an extra $10 billion in 2013 which protects medicare an medicaid, funds the minority aids initiative and the offices of minority health and provides funding for the new institute at n.i.h. it provides funding for block grants, maternal an child health, oral health programs, the community health programs and we increase funding for substance abuse and mental hell for the training of

underrepresented minorities in the health work force an for the first time for health facilities improvements and construction. health care is a right and the c.b.c. through this budget ensures that all americans will enjoy that right. we make a strong investment in health an much more and still reduce the deficit by $3.4 trillion over the next 10 years. i urge an aye vote and yield back my teem. joip the gentleman's time is reserved this gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chaffetz: one of the social contracts is to older americans, they have the asumming things will be there, we have to live up to those obligations. but we have to live up to obligations to our kids an gran kids. one of my objectives is to leave this country better than we found it. one of the things the republican budget does is

balances and pay office the debt. the fundamental question becomes how do you do that? the place where we have common ground is we want to broaden the base. let people keep their own, spend their own money. that's what the united states of america is all about. the contrast here an what's being proposed is they want to broaden the base, again, common ground, but want to raise the rate. that's why i think we have a fundamental challenge. we talk about what people have to pay in their fair share and what not. but let's look historically at what's happened in the united states of america. historically we have spent less than 20% of our gross domestic product. the president, democrats controlled the house, the senate and the presidency, they raised it up over 24%, more than 24 cents of every dollar was spent by the federal government. i think that's a moral -- i think that's immoral and i think it's wrong. we have an obligation, we have a duty to live within our means. and provide opportunity and

liberties for people to thrive. no matter where they are in life, the united states of america is about freedom, it's about liberty, it's about the opportunity to succeed. and that's the foundation of this country, that's what i'm committed to, that's what a responsible federal government does. the proper role of government is limited in its scope but the proper role of government is a role of government. that to me means the department of defense and other things to protect our nation, that's where we should put our priorities and that's why i think this budget that the house republicans have proposed is so responsible. i don't think we're just one good tax increase away from prosperity in this country and that's in part why i stand in opposition to this amendment. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from missouri. mr. cleaver: i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from florida, ms. written. -- ms. brown. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. brown: let me just say, i want to thank the congressional black caucus for their

leadership and the fact is, they are the conscience of this congress. thank you so very much. transportation and infrastructure is adequate -- if adequately funded will generate thousands of jobs. in fact for every $1 billion we invest in transportation, it generates 44 permanent jobs and $6.2 billion in economic activity. with the c.b.c.'s initial investment of $50 billion in infrastructure funding, this budget will create over two million good-paying jobs and would also allow us to fix our failing bridges, aging transportation system, and crumbling roads. in addition, let me mention one thing about the v.a. the republicans often mention what did the democrats do when they were in charge? we passed the largest v.a. budget in the history of the united states of america.

republicans often talk the talk, democrats walk the walk. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chaffetz: you have to recognize how much the federal government is spending here. we're going to spend in the range of $3.5 trillion or $3.6 trillion in a 12-month period. part of my question a rhetorical question, is, if that's not stimlative to the economy, why isn't it? what are we spending our money on if it's not intened in part to stimulate the economy. there are things we have to do in terms of security and providing for the f.a.a. and department of defense but we have to utilize those resources in a very wise way. i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from missouri. mr. cleaver: i would like to yield now one minute to the distinguished lady from california, ms. lee. the chair: the gentlelady is

recognized for one minute. ms. lee: thank you, mr. chairman. let me first thank chairman cleaver depr his tremendous leadership of the congressional black caucus an many caucuses in this house and also representative wonny scot an represent gwynn moore. at a time when this nation is facing the greatest income inequality since the great depression, we have to put the needs of the most vulnerable over the wants of the most wealthy. the congressional black caucus' budget is a moral document that shows our priorities and values. it makes important investments in transportation, education, and health care. it also protect this is safety net without cutting social security, destroying medicaid and ending the medicare guarantee as the republican budget does and we must ensure that those who have borne the brunt of this recession, who have experienced the highest unemployment rates an the highest rates of poverty,

communities of color, have an opportunity to return to the workplace, support their families, have access to education and the american dream. these should be the values and priorities of a budget a budget for everyone in mind, not just for the 1%. these are the priorities that will ensure our country and all of its people, not just the 1%, recover fully from this devastating recession. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. cleer: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. scot. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: i wanted to point out that the gentleman from utah has suggested the need to reduce the deficit. the congressional black caucus budget beats the republican budget by $770 billion. then he talks about tax increases but doesn't mention the fine print that instructs the ways and means committee to find $4 trillion in tax

increases. fiscal responsibility is the idea, the congressional plaque caucus beats the republican budget by $770 billion over 10 years. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. chaffetz -- mr. cleaver: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: how much time remains? the chair: the gentleman has eight minute the gentleman from missouri has two minutes. mr. chaffetz: it is my intention to yield the gentleman additional time. i'm happy to do. i will reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time is reserved. mr. cleaver: i thank the gentleman from utah for his generosity and courtesy. i would like to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the chair: the gentlelady from texas.

the gentlelady from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chairman very much and i thank the chairman of the congressional black caucus for yielding to me and join in my colleagues and thanking his leadership and thanking the chairman, mr. scott, the work that congresswoman moore does and i thank my friend for this debate and only say to you in the course of our debate this evening and today, we have heard of the mountain of debt and the need to cut, cut, cut and it is all right to have a difference of opinion. but what i would argue is there are documented economists that say if you invest in human capital, if you invest in

people, you buildup the economy, you make things in america. i don't want to leave americans on the, if you will, on the trash heap of despair. i don't want to leave bodies saddled all along the hey ways, those knocking on doors of colleges, those trying to get into primary and secondary education, that's where we're going -- can i have an additional minute? mr. cleaver: yield the gentlelady an additional minute. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i'm trying to end the destruction of jobs -- the chair: the committee will be in order. ms. jackson lee: and the taking of money from the poor. the c.b.c. budget is responsible in that it's ending the mortgage

interest deduction for yachts and $25 billion for education and job training increase, $50 billion in transportation infrastructure and rolling back the harmful cuts to federal employees, $12 brillion above the president's budget with nasa and research development program. providing more funding for the national science foundation and yes, we believe in justice and support full funding for the department of justice, second chance, the civil rights division. i will tell you that the message tonight has to be we don't want to take food from the poor people and don't want to make it harder, and we want to take people off the trash heap of despair and let them walk into glory. let's support the c.b.c. budget

and i yield back. mr. cleaver: mr. chairman -- the chair: the gentleman from missouri. mr. cleaver: mr. chairman, let me just say -- let me ask with the generosity of the the gentleman from utah how much time do we have? the chair: the gentleman has 30 seconds remaining. mr. chaffetz: i would like yield to yield two minutes to the gentleman if he needs it if he has additional speakers. mr. cleaver: mr. chairman, i would like to yield one minute to the the gentlewoman from california, ms. richardson. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. richardson: mr. speaker, i rise today in strong support of the congressional black caucus' alternative budget for fiscal year 2013. this budget should be considered

and made in order by all of our colleagues. minority communities took the hardest hit during the economic recession. in my district we suffered rates of unemployment arranging as high as 25%, home foreclosures and significantly more experiencing pain than across the country. our budget deals with these issues, helping us to have a skilled educated work force. it increases the maximum pell grant award. invests an additional $25 billion of the president's budget in education and job training and $50 billion in transportation infrastructure projects and provides $5 billion for the president's budget to help people in our communities with foreclosures. mr. speaker, we stand today -- i stand in support of the c.b.c. budget and urge my colleagues to support it as well and i reserve the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentlelady yields back. mr. cleaver: let me close on our side by thanking the gentleman. and i call attention to one thing and it is important and may be more important because i think it helps us eventually reach budgets. not one speaker on this side called this the ryan budget. i was in an interview this morning and someone asked me what i thought about the ryan budget, and i said, this is the republican budget. and if i attack the budget, it seems as if i'm attacking the man whose name is attached to it. this institution is far too important for us to us to get can you down into that kind of thing. we have some real differences in this budget, i believe, and our budget reflects that the budget is an x-ray of our inners. it is a moral document.

it tells who we are. and i say in another position in my life, if you show me your checkbook, i can tell you what you believe in. mr. chairman, thank you very much. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chaffetz: i appreciate the gentleman's comments, the generosity and the approach he took. we should date the issues, but we don't need to attack the person. i appreciate the attitude and i appreciate the comments from our chairman ryan. i know when speaker boehner said, we should disagree but should not be disagreeable. this is a contrast. there is a difference in opinion in the direction we should go. i funnelly believe we are -- fundamentally believe we are one tax increase away in this

country. our government has overreached. it is spending and borrowing too much. is there a proper role for regulation? absolutely. absolutely. and where it's a necessity, we need to prioritize and fix those things that aren't working. what we have proposed in our budget is a responsible bold budget and it is a realistic budget that over the course of time, balances the books and pays off the debt. that is the imperative of our nation, because as i cited earlier, we should leave this nation better than when we found it and that means creating opportunity for this nation to thrive. manufacturing is good in this nation. we need to remember that yes, we have to make investments to protect our nation. i look at the president's budget and only thing i see it cuts is defense and only thing it drills is your wallet. i don't believe that is the direction of our nation.

and we are debating this. for more than 1,050 hasn't brought a floor to debate the budget. i'm proud of the fact that this body is doing this and i encourage a no vote on what has been offered as a substitute but i do encourage members to vote for what passed out of the budget committee, i think it is responsible, bold and right action for our nation. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri will be postponed.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition. the clerk: amendment number 3 in the nature of a substitute

printed in house report 112-423 offered by mr. cooper of tennessee. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 597, the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cooper, and a member opposed will each control 10 minutes, the chair recognizes mr. cooper. mr. cooper: i believe we have agreed to divide the time in a different way. i yield to the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, i claim in opposition but i yield half my time, five minutes to the gentleman from tennessee. the chair: the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from tennessee. mr. cooper: i would like to yield half of my time, 7 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr.la turt. i have the honor tonight of representing the budget that's endorsed by simpson and bowles and only bipartisan budget that the house of representatives will be able to consider in this

budget cycle. this is the first time that a bowles-simpson budget has been allowed on the house floor. and i hope that members will appreciate this opportunity. this is one of the most partisan weeks in washington and only most bipartisan way to solve the nation's problem and only budget that has a chance of getting through the house and the senate. i hope members will appreciate this opportunity. we have been hammered by forces on the left and the right, people who do not want america to solve its problems in a fair and sensible manner. the "wall street journal" today had a graph of a different budget alternative. the top line here is assuming policies. clear trouble here. the blue line here is the white house budget which makes considerable progress.

the bottom line is the g.o.p. plan, which is tough and completely partisan. there is not a single democrat in the country that will support that. so it is a budget to no where, a bridge to no where. in between is the bipartisan proposal, the simpson-bowles endorsed budget, it gets the job done and gets the job done in a bipartisan fashion. i hope my colleagues will focus on this. we have precious few minutes to debate this. the other side had four hours. this is a david versus goliath situation. the public wants us to solve our problems in a peaceable and fair fashion. they are tired of political bickering and we have the chance to stop it and pass a good, tough, fair budget for america. mr. chairman, i reserve the

balance of my time. and i yield to the other side. the chair: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves? the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. latourette: i understand that mr. cooper's unanimous consent request yielded me 7 1/2 minutes and gave me authority to yield time, is that correct? the chair: that's correct. mr. latourette: i want to begin by saying something nice about paul ryan. he has the hardest job in the country. and i yield myself a minute and a half to put together the budget he has. as mr. cooper indicated, his budget is a republican budget. mr. van hollen's is a republican budget. recently, there is a

organization called political fact that checks out what public figures say. pants on fire was awarded as the biggest lie in 2011 and got the distinction of being pants on fire for all of 2011. as mr. cooper indicated, we have been viciously atact from the left and the right and that's what is happening here today. i want to give some pants on fire to some of the claims that are being made. the claim that this creates a path to medicare premium support. this slashes been fits. this is a $2 trillion, false, your pants are on fire. repealing the sequester, false, your pants are on fire. this would december i am mate the defense budget, false, your pants on fire.

this -- yield myself another 0 seconds. tax avoidance by corporations and ship jobs overseas, pants on fire. the recession would worsen, your pants are on fire. g.d.p. requires deep cuts, your pants are on fire. and the the budget would december i am mate domestic programs, your pants are on fire and anybody who wants to read about it, see mr. cooper or i and we will put your pants out. thank you. the chair: gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from wisconsin. . . . mr. ryan: the reason we wanted to yield half our time to them, it's not fair that they weren't given the same amount of time as other alternatives were. it's nice that they put the

plan on the table. i served on the simpson bowles commission and voted against it. i'll explain why, i'll use the numbers from this budget to show. number one, it keeps obamacare in place. it keeps ppaca in place. this budget does too. so it's current law, so unless you rescind it, the spending of it, you're keeping obamacare in place. i have a problem with that health care law. i think it's a bad one. this budget and simpson bowles keeps it in place. number two, it doesn't address the drivers of our debt, the entitlement programs. simpson-bowles didn't do it this one doesn't either. to me, you're not dealing with the driver of our debt unless you do that. number three new york revenues, based on the baseline, it has $1.3 trillion higher, -- higher revenues. it has higher revenues than the democratic substitute an the president's budget. the spending cuts, when you

look at baseline, compared to the current law, base line, the one we all measure against here, you take out the war gimmick, it only has $27 billion in spending cuts over 10 years. by contrast, our budget has $3.3 trillion. so i'm not a fan of the war gimmick, you take out that war thing, only cuts about $27 billion off the current base line. it claims that this cuts $4 trillion in deficit reduction. i'm not sure what base lyn is being used to do that but on the current policy baseline this has only $2.5 trillion of deficit reduction, 72% of that comes from tax increases and 28% comes from spend regular ducks. so i want to simply say, amen for bringing a plan to the table. i have tremendous respect forers kin bowles and allan simpson and jim cooper and steve latourette because they're here being part of the solution, by offering a solution, and not being part of the problem.

that goes without saying, but it bears repeating, i don't like the substance of it. i think it's going to end up pushing people into obamacare whose costs will explode and i think it's going to be bad for our health care system and it doesn't deal with the primary drivers of our debt and i don't want to see a big tax increase before you deal with entitlement programs. when you're just chasing higher spending with higher revenues. the chair: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from tennessee. >> i yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: there's a consensus in america we have to reduce our deficit, most of it by cutting spending, some of it in revenue contribution from the wealthiest americans. this proposal does this, so i support it. the other reason i support it, i want our country to have enough resources that a wild

can get the best education they should. we won't if we don't control the deficit. i want her mother to get a college education and good job, we won't if we don't control the deficit. i want her grandmother to have social security and medicare, we won't if we don't control the deficit. if you believe in the progressive things government can do, you must believe and act on reducing the deficit. this is the best and bipartisan way in front of us. i urge a yes vote. the chair: mr. chairman, ill like to yield one minute to my friend, the gentleman from virginia, mr. wolf, who helped me with the original cooper-wolf legislation that helped spawn the simpson-bowles commission. mr. latourette: and i yield the gentleman one minute of our time too, for a total of two. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wolf: i tell the gentleman, i am opposed to obamacare and voted against it 26 times.

america is in trouble. america is facing economic collapse. we have $15.2 trillion debt and by the end of this year, when you hang your christmas tree lights up, with christmas tree lights made in china, it will be at $17 trillion -- $17 trillion. we're borrowing money from china, with catholic bishops under house arrest, protestant pastors under house arrest. when i go in any high school in my district, i ask the young people is social security system sound and will be there when you retire? in the last three years, not one has raised their hand. the seniors in my congressional district know more than this congress and more than this administration. the president has walked away and has failed the congress,

both political parties have walked away and failed. i congressmen my friend, mr. cooper, and mr. latourette and ask for a yes vote on the simpson-bowles commission. i yield back the plans of my time. the chair: who seeks recognition? >> if no one else is seeking time, i yield one and a half minutes to my friend from oregon, mr. schrader who along with mr. quigley and mr. la costa have been invaluable in pushing the simpson-bowles budget. mr. schrader: thank you, mr. speaker. i commend mr. cooper and mr. latourette for bringing this bipartisan proposal forward. it's time, america, to focus on things we agree on. not things that we disagree on. america wants to see us as uniters, not dividers in this business down here. this is the only bipartisan proposal that's going ton offered. -- going to be offer. it's going to be the framework

for whatever deal we come to come the end of this career when we're staring the bush tax cuts going off, staring at extreme defense cuts in the face. this is the proposal, in some form that will be adopted. this proposal recognizes there's a balance. it's not perfect. there's some problems but this is the only proposal that's bipartisan. it addresses the two big drivers, our revenues are at an all-time low, you won't have a vibrant economy without revenue to to support our schools, our infrastructure and our economic development. yes, the entitlements are a problem. the gentleman from wisconsin, while he's not in fare of some aspects of the health care bill, adopts all of the savings that we did in the last congress because they're good, efficient ways to improve the life and solvency of medicare. medicare is not a problem because president bush was evil

or president obama was evil. it's a problem we got more people in the baby boomers retiring, less workers to support them at the end of the day, and great health care that's being driven. so we need to get our act together and support this proposal. i yelled pack. the chair: the gentleman from ohio. mr. latourette: it's my pleasure to yield a minute and a half to my friend and classmate from new hampshire, mr. bass. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one and a half minutes. mr. bass: i thank the gentleman from ohio for yielding. i rise in support of the pending amendment. the budget presented by my friend from wisconsin, congressman ryan, is a great statement of principle and i will vote for it and i suspect it will pass the house but it will not be considereded by the senate. the nat will not accept or pass appropriations at its levels and there will be no reconciliation this year. mr. chairman, in nine short months, the bush era tax cuts will end, taxes will go up by

$4.6 trillion, the biggest tax increase in american history. the mindless, across-the-board cuts in spending will take effect amongst other programs cutting defense by over $4 trillion. we'll have a vote to raise the nation's debt with no accomplishments to justify it. we'll have to renew or repeal the temporary payroll tax hol holiday and we'll have to complete our appropriations at higher levels than in this budget, the base budget, or face the specter of continuing resolutions through next year. the american people have heard the debate on both sides and they are crying for solutions, not squabbling, not posschuring or policy brinksmanship. we all have principles. compromise is not a capitulation of principle. it never has been. all of the great policy accomplishments in our nation's

history have resulted from the willingness of men and women of principle to attack and resolve crises together, through negotiation, and yes, compromise. we have that chance tonight. mr. speaker, i chang republicans and democrats to vote for the latourette-cooper-simpson-bowle s budget tonight and make america proud of us once again. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from tennessee. who seeks recognition? mr. cooper: i recognize my friend from pennsylvania, mr. fattah, for one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. fattah: i rise in support of this bipartisan budget that's being offered that would approach this in a balanced way. that is, with both cuts and adecisional revenues. it is the basis under which there's majority support in our country.

we have a responsibility to rise to the occasion and i would hope tonight that we'd have members of this house that could rise above party, do what's right, let's move the country in a responsible way so we can continue to make the investments we need so america can live up to its responsibilities to its citizens and to global leadership. thank you. the chair: i yield an additional 30 seconds to mr. latourette. does the gentleman seek unanimous consent? mr. ryan: yes. mr. latourette: and in the spirit of unanimous consent, that 15 seconds go to mr. cooper and he can allocate those as he sees fit. the chair: without objection. mr. latourette: it's my pleasure to yield to a new member of the house from the state of illinois, who co-sponsored this substitute at great political peril and he

deserves to be rewarded by the citizens of illinois and not punished by special interest groups, bob dold of illinois. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. told: i thank the gentleman for his leadership on this. i thank my friend, pall ryan, for his work on the budget, which i think is so critical. as we look at budgets right now, there are not so many of them over in the senate. when i think about running a business or the families that need to put together a budget, i think it's wrong that the united states government doesn't have one. mr. chairman, my children are on the floor today. they are here in washington, d.c. when i think about why i came to washington, d.c., it's because of them. about the american dream for my children, about providing a country that's better off for them. we've got $15.5 trillion in debt, we borrow 42 cents of every single dollar. it's time to put people before politics and people before par

sanship to get something done. it's about provying sloughs for our country so we can come together and have a document we can use to move the country forward. we need to cut back, rein in spending, provide that certainty for american businesses that are out there. this is our time. we republicans an democrats alike have to put the party bickering aside. we have to focus on the solutions that are out there. am i going to like all of it? the answer is no, i'm not going to like all of it. mr. latourette: i yield the gentleman 15 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dold: i thank the gentleman. the point is this, mr. chairman, for my children and yours for the children of the next generation, the time is now. we have to stan up, we have to put together a budget, we have to do so, we have to find the common grown and move forward. we have to lower our corporate tax rate so we can be more competitive in the global marketplace.

this is our time, i'm asking everyone for a yes vote on the cooper-latourette amendment. i thank my colleague for his leadership and my colleague from ohio as well. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from tennessee. mr. cooper: how much time remains? the chair: the gentleman from tennessee has one and three quarter minutes remain, including his additional 15 seconds. the gentleman from ohio, has 15 seconds remain, the gentleman from wisconsin has two minutes remaining. mr. latourette: mr. ryan has the right to close, and i'm the last speaker. unless mr. ryan wants to yield us the rest of his time. mr. cooper: last fall, 100 of our colleagues signed the go big letter, urging the super

committee to do the right thing, let me quote, to exceed all options for -- to succeed, all options must be on the table and we know that a target of some $4 trillion in deficit reduction is necessary to stabilize our debt as a share of the economy. this is what the simpson-bowles budget does and only the simpson-bowles budget. for those of my colleagues worried about certain pars of this, do not confuse the simpson-bowles report with the budget. a budget is just a framework. it instructs committees to come up with savings an the committees have the discretion to that -- to do that in the reports the simpson-bowles report is one way to do that but this is a guide for the committees of jurisdiction. that's what we must do tonight and do on a bipartisan basis. we must come together for the good of the country. we must put our nation first, we must celt partisanship aside. this is the only way that we can pass a budget in the house

and the senate this year which we must have. it's easy to be critical, it's hard to perform. let's make it happen for america tonight. we have an opportunity within our hands to give the united states a budget. all of the other plans are purely partisan and they don't have a prayer. let's build a bring to the future, let's build a real budget that can pass both houses of congress. i urge my colleagues to support the simpson-bowles endorsed budget alternative. i thank the chair and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from ohio. mr. latourette: i yield myself the balance of our time in support of this proposal. i understand that's three minutes, is that right? the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. latourette: i thank the chair very much. again, i want to thank my partner, mr. cooper, and i also want to thank all the brave republicans and democrats who are going to vote for this, all the brave and republican democrats who co-sponsored it. because this is not an easy vote. mr. chairman, the last three elections have been the wildest elections i have seen in my

political life and it's between party and party and party and 2012's going to be the same thing. but i'll tell you what's different. it's not the democrats are going to take over or the republicans are going to take over. the mood in the country is, throw the bums out. throw them all out and replace them with new people. americans are screaming for us to take off our red jerseys on this side, to take off the blue jerseys on that side, and put on the red, white and blue jerseys of the united states of america. our proposal inspired by the simpson-bowles fiscal commission authorized by the president of the united states has been viciously attacked from the left and the right and so i think cooper, we're -- and so i think, cooper, we're on to something. i want to make an observation from a pretty famous american made just a month ago in the rose garden down at the white house. the kyo is, this may be an election year -- the quote is, this may be an election year but the american people have no patience for gridlock and just paying attention to poll numbers

in the next election instead of the next generation and what we can do to strengthen opportunity for all americans. americans don't have the luxury to put off tough decisions and neater should we -- neither should we. president obama, february 21, 2012. i've heard a lot of people say that this is hard work, that not now. if not now, then when? and if not this, what? ever? mr. speaker, mr. chairman, we're asking that members tonight stand up. that they stand up to the blood suckers in this town that take $5, $10, $15, $25 from our constituents to pretend to stand up for matters on their behalf. we're asking people to stand up to honor their pledge that they made on the opening day of the 112th congress, to defend the

united states of america from all enemies, foreign and domestic, we ask that our colleagues stand up to america's biggest domestic threat and enemy, the $15 trillion soon to be $22 trillion that's staring us in the face. the time is now, we got to get it done. this is the only bipartisan approach and this is the only thing that has the chance to be adopted by both parties and the president of the united states who authorized simpson-bowles. i thank charity and i yield back the balance of my time. -- i thank the chair and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i want to congratulate the gentleman for showing a plan and coming together. but i would simply say, the president disavowed this plan already. the senate majority leader said he's not doing a budget this year. i don't think anything's passing

over there. and i want to reserve the rest of my comments for the substance of this. and i'll reveal the private conversation i had with simpsons and bowles as to why i was not supporting simpson-bowles as a member of that commission. this doesn't go big, this doesn't tackle the problem. it doesn't do the big things. you can never get the debt under control if you don't deal with our health care entitlement programs. they're the ones that are the big drivers of our debt. so not only in addition to the fact that this keeps obamacare in place, and it doesn't do medicare and medicaid reform which are essential to preventing the debt crisis, by repealing the tax exclusion as simpson-bowles plans on doing, proposes to do, you're going to cause all of these employers to drop health insurance for their employees and push everybody into the health care law, obamacare, and the cost will explode. so i believe it will do more harm than good at the end of the day. and i just don't think it's a balanced plan. if you look at the raw numbers, 72% of it is tax increases and

28% of it is spending reductions. that to me is just not balanced. we don't want to create a new revenue machine for government without getting these entitlements under control. let's not chase ever-higher spending with ever-higher revenues. and so i appreciate the sincerity and the bipartisanship nature of this, but i don't think the substance of this bill is right. i think it's going to worsen our fiscal situation by piling people onto the health care law and it's going to hasten the bankruptcy of medicare. it's still going to stretch medicaid which grows by 1/3 in eligibility, a program that's falling apart by the seams, and i believe these tax rate increases, the revenue increases will just be used to fuel more spending. and that's why i urge a no vote on this bill. on the unstance of it -- on the substance of it.

the chair: all time for debate has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. cooper: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 11-423 on which further proceedings were -- 11-423 on which further proceedings were postponed. amendment number 1, amendment number 2 by mr. cleaver of missouri, amendment number 3 by mr. cooper of tennessee. the chair will reduce to five minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-423 on which

further proceedings were postponed and which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 1 in the nature of a substitute printed in house report 112-423 offered by mr. mulvaney of south carolina. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are zero and the nays are 414. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-423 by the gentleman from missouri, mr. cleaver, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 in the nature of a substitute printed in house report 112-423 offered by mr. cleaver of missouri. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes

by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 107, the nays are 313. the amendment is not adopted.

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 107, the nays are 314. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 3 printed this house report 112-423 by the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cooper, on which further proceedings were postponed and which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 in the nature of a substitute printed in house report 112-423 offered by mr. cooper of tennessee. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device.

this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 38, the nays are 382 with two answering present and the amendment is not adopted. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. ryan: mr. chairman, i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the committee rises. .

the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 112, direct mess to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration concurrent resolution 112 and has come to no resolution thereon. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> mr. speaker, i send to the

desk a privileged report. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 100, resolution for consideration of the bill 4281 to provide an extension of federal aid hey, hey safety, motor carrier safety, transit and other programs funded out of the highway trust fund reauthorizing such programs and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and reported printed. pursuant to house resolution 597 house rule 18, the clerk declares the house of the committee of the whole house of the state of the union for further consideration of house concurrent resolution 12 -- 112.

will the gentleman from kansas kindly retake the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house of the state union for the further consideration of 112 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: concurrent resolution establishing the budget for the united states government for fiscal year 2013 and setting forth prompt budgetary levels for 2014 through 2022. the chair: when the committee of the whole house rose earlier today, amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-423 offered by mr. cooper had been disposed.

the committee will come to order. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-423. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. honda: mr. speaker, i have an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 in the nature of a substitute printed in house report 112-423 offered by mr. honda of california. mr. honda: the house is not in order. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 597, the gentleman from california, mr. honda, and a member opposed each will

control 15 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. honda: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this session of congress represents a unique opportunity in history to accomplish something great, the pending sequester of the overwhelming tax provisions to expire and the debt must force us to make decisions. the amendment before us today is more than just a set of numbers, pathway forward, it's a solution. we listened to what the american people want. they want shared prosperity and want us to protect the social safety network and basic fairness and that is exactly what this plan provides. first and foremost we focus our attention where it is needed the most, job creation. this prime minister ills estimated to create 3.3 million jobs because the it uses every

tool in the government's arsenal. target tax incentives and three, widespread domestic investments. mr. chairman, the house is not in order. the chair: the gentleman is correct. the committee will come to order. the gentleman from california may continue. mr. honda: the republican budget relies on trickle-down voo do economics that haven't worked before and won't work now. it will kill 4.1 million jobs. americans deserve prove yench solutions, a growing economy and financial security for themselves and their loved ones. the progressive caucus is laying

the foundation for a globally competitive future. we need to invest in human capital, education, and cutting-edge technologies. this is about a successful economy and it is the real road map to prosperity. >> the committee is not in order. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the committee will come to order. the gentleman may continue. mr. honda: secondly, the progressive caucus believes that medicare, medicaid and social security are not up for negotiation. the republican treats our americans like lab rats and what the budget for all proves is that we don't need to put these essential programs on the chopping block. the assumptions are wrong and we can do better. as the primary author, i'm proud

of the transparency of what we put before the american people. what we put online is very clear about the policies we stand for and those we oppose. the republican budget focuses on so much of what they don't like on the president's proposal and they achieve their end goals. it is so scarce on details that the "washington post" referred to it as dangerous and intentionally vague. it claims lower taxes for all, but no real details on how to get there. it claims substantial deficit reduction, but assumes trillions in lost revenue will magicically return. the republican plan hides the real substance because that is the hard part of governing. being honest with the american people isn't easy, but in these difficult times it is the very least we can do. i urge my colleagues to support honest solutions.

i urge a yes vote on this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. mr. mcclintock? mr. mcclintock: i claim time in opposition and i yield myself five minutes. i want to congratulate the progressive caucus on producing a budget that addresses our crushing deficit. their budget produces deficit numbers that are right in line with the republican budget's path to prosperity. the republican plan reduces the deficit by reorganizing our government services by awe streamline structure saving trillions of dollars while they would increase spending supported by $6.8 trillion in new taxes over the next decade. what does that real in real

numbers? it comes to about $22,000 of taxes for every man, woman and child in america, about $88,000 for a family of four. don't worry, we are told. we aren't taxing working-class families, just rich people and corporations. let's get a few things straight here. it turns out that many of the rich people aren't rich and they aren't even people, small businesses filing under sub-chapter s, the via small businesses that we are depending to create jobs for americans that they desperately need. to crush smam businesses and expect them to create more jobs is simply absurd. secondly, remember that businesses do not pay business taxes. business taxes can only be paid in one of three ways. they are paid by consumers

through higher prices, they are paid by employees through lower wages or no wages at all as jobs disappear or paid by investors, that's the only three ways they can possibly be paid. let's talk about fairness. in 2008, top 1% of taxpayers, folks earning about $344,000 per year earned about 17% of all income and paid 37% of all income taxes. as a class, they are paying their fair share, but the progressives are right that some individuals within this class pay less than their fair share because of their disproportionate access to tax loopholes. the progressives want to get rid of some of these loopholes and that's a good thing, but at the same time, they want to increase loopholes for others. they don't mind government picking winners among their

friends, they just want to do the picking. the republican plan calls for the elimination of these these loopholes by lowering overall tax rates some no american pays over a third of their earnings to the government. that is fairness. the underlying problem that is destroying our nation's finances can be summed up with three simple numbers, 35, 33 and 76. 35, 33, 76. between 2002 and 2012, population and inflation combined grew 35%. now despite the recession and recent tax cuts, federal revenues have grown 33% in the same period, very, very close. the third number is what is killing our country. 676 -- 76% is the increase in spng, twice the rate in population growth has anyone

seen a 76% increase in the quality of our roads, institutions, or border security? we have paid for it, we aren't getting it. and that's what is out of control about this administration. no nation has ever taxed its way to prosperity, but many nations have taxed and spent their way to economic ruin and bankruptcy. when we are told this is the worst recession since the depression, i remember a time much more recently when we not only had double digit unemployment, mile-long lines around gas stations and interest rates at 21%, at the end of the carter administration. maybe we don't remember those days as vividly, it's because they didn't last very long. we elected ronald reagan and he cut spending as a percentage of g.d.p. and cut the marginal tax rate from 70% all the way down

to 28% and reduced the regulatory burdens crushing the economy and produced one of the most prolonged paths. harding, kennedy and clinton followed similar policies with similar results. it was recently estimated that if the economy today had tracked with the reagan economy, 17 million more americans would be working right now and income would be $5,700 per person. we need to choose wisely here and at the polls in november. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. honda: i allocate two minutes to the gentleman from from minnesota, mr. ellison. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes.

mr. ellison: i allow me to go to the heart of the minutes and how our nation shall spend money over the course of years. what we are dealing with now is we are dealing with unemployment and this budget is no decent budget at all unless it deals with jobs. now, the budget for all, which is the progressive caucus budget, is all about jobs. we make investments in people developing our work force, developing education and putting americans back to work. america has worked that needs to be done. we have about $2 trillion worth of crumbling infrastructure, which the republicans don't invest in. america has jobs that need to be done. we've got people that do them and we have privileged americans and corporations who have the money if they were to give it in the way of taxes as the dues we pay to live in a civilized

society, we could combine these three elements to put america back to work. . it invests in america's future and reduces the deficit. we're serious about that. i'd like to make sure that others are too and don't just say so. we've got to put america back to work. the budget for all does that. we urge support for the budget for all. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota yields back. the gentleman from california, mr. honda reserves. the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, is recognized. mr. mcclintock: i am pleased to yield two minutes to the member from indiana, a member of the budget committee,. >> our brave men and women continue to serve in harm's way overseas, this nation's in trouble. young ying i wonder, which of the -- mr. young: i wonder, which of

the following choices would americans choose if they had to pick one? would it be a, an across-the-board income tax increase? would it be b, a new tax increase on gas, electricity and natural gas? would it be c, a cut in funding for our soldiers to levels that the pentagon warns is dangerous to our national security? now i suspect, mr. speaker, that the american people have given the choice. they'd prefer to have an option d. none of the above. but unfortunately they're not given this choice in the progressive caucus budget. it forces instead all three options on the american public that is already struggling. it raises taxes and every income tax bracket to the tune of $4.4 trillion. it raises the price at the pump and on utility bills ever higher by creating a new tax on all fossil fuel-based energy sources. it makes no attempt to offset the impending defense spending see quester. while i commend my colleagues, i do commend my colleagues for making the effort to develop

solutions to our nation's problems, and getting specific on those solutions, i think the american people can do better. house republicans, we've given americans that none of the above d option through our own budget. our budget responsibly solves our nation's debt challenges, it responsibly cuts our spending, it avoids a tax increase and it strengthens programs like medicare and medicaid, important to so many americans. most importantly it does so by lightening the burden of government on hardworking american taxpayers, not burdening them with more government. i respect my colleagues and urge my colleagues however to vote against the progressive cause budget. i yield back -- caucus budget. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from indiana yields back. the gentleman from california, mr. honda, is recognized. mr. honda: thank you, mr. speaker. our next speaker will be the founder of the progressive caucus, the proud congresswoman woolsey. ms. woolsey: thank you. mr. chairman, the budget for all

rearranges our national security spending priorities in a way that keeps america safe instead of keeping america bogged down in expensive, immoral wars. by bringing our troops home from afghanistan, we save over $1 trillion over 10 years. we invest -- reinvest that money in the american people. their education, their health care, their infrastructure, their retirement security, their hopes and their dreams. and there's money left over to beef up smart security priorities. development, diplomacy, foreign and humanitarian aid. the tools that will truly combat terrorism and protect our nation in the 21st century. we get rid of ancient, obsolete cold war weapons systems that are doing nothing to address today's security threats as well. we also take care of our veterans and we dramatically

reduce our nuclear arsenal. i urge all members, read this budget, embrace it. and -- because it truly reflects the values and priorities of the american people. the congressional progressive caucus budget for all. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from california, mr. honda, reserves. the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock is recognized. mr. mcclintock: mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. flores. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. flores: i thank my colleague, mr. mcclintock. mr. chairman, the progressive caucus budget amendment creates devastating cuts to our nation's defense. our federal government's primary responsibility under the constitution is to provide for the common defense, for the security of all americans. this budget amendment causes the federal government to abdicate this important responsibility. this substitute amendment guts the defense department, by calling for cuts that are $900

billion deeper than the nearly half a trillion dollars that the president already proposed to be cut from the defense plan that he proposed just one year ago. this substitute has no specific plan to replace the sequester which secretary of defense panetta said would cause catastrophic consequences and which would devastate our department of defense. this amendment ignores our constitutional responsibility and tells our troops in the field that regardless of where the mission is and what state it is, that we're going to cut off funding. this comes despite the fact that u.s. commanders have made it clear that there will be a continued role for the u.s. in afghanistan even after afghanistan security forces assume responsibility for security. this budget amendment also shows what cuts effects will have.

this is not the time to cut spending on the one federal government function that is specifically called for in our constitution. the american people, as you hear from the other side, are looking for fairness. cutting defense funding as our colleagues are trying to do here, is not fair to the economic and military security of this country. this proposed budget amendment as well as the president's budget which was soundly defeated a few minutes ago are not fair for america. what is fair is to set forth a budget which approves the atmosphere for job creation and which stimulates economic growth by relying on main street american solutions. if the progressive caucus and the obama budgets are looking for fairness, they should not be looking to cut the department of defense. i urge my colleagues to oppose

this substitute amendment so that we can ensure the safety and security of the brave men and women serving our country. and for the american workers who support them. in the alternative, i urge my colleagues to support the house budget committee's f.y. 2013 budget. it is the budget that will restore america's promise and prosperity and security for future generations. thank you, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, reserves. the gentleman from california, mr. monday da, is recognized -- honda, is recognized. mr. honda: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to call up the gentlelady from california -- mrs. barbara lee. for one minute. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. lee: let me first thank congressman honda, congressman grijalva and ellison, and all of the c.p.c. members for their tireless effort on this budget. congresswoman woolsey, all of

our members who really put so much time and effort into this. i'm proud to be a co-sponsor of the budget for all, because the american people must have an honest budget that does not blame the poor for the problems created by the super rich. the tea party republican budget for the 1% does just that. their budget only cuts programs for our seniors, our children, our nation's working poor and vulnerable, while giving away $4.4 trillion in tax cuts for the super rich. and for all of their heartless cuts that end medicare, hurt our children, close schools and fire police officers. they don't even come close to balancing the budget because they can't stop themselves from giving away trillions to the special interests, big oil and the top 1%. i strongly believe that a budget is a moral document, that shows our nation's priorities and values like the congressional black caucus' budget, the congressional progressive caucus budget is a moral budget. one that invests in the future of all americans and one that believes that our greatest days lie ahead. may i have an additional minute?

mr. honda: i'll give 15 seconds. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for an additional 15 seconds. ms. lee: thank you very much. let me also mention in closing that our budget also ends this combat operation in afghanistan. the american people want the war to end, we have decided that no more funding for combat operations, there's no military solution, we do provide the funds to protect our troops and contractors and to bring them home safely in an orderly fashion. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from california, mr. honda, reserves. the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, is recognized. mr. mcclintock: i'm pleased to yield 1 1/2 minutes to my friend and colleague from oklahoma, mr. lankford. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. lankford: thank you, mr. chairman. it is good to have a chance to have this debate that is unique on the house floor, to be able to go through this. obviously we look forward to the day that the senate has this same kind of dialogue back and forth on our spending priorities in the budget. now well over 1,000 days the senate has had any conversation like this.

it's terrific to have this. there are areas i would look at and concur with. this budget takes on things like the a.m.t. fix, the alternative minimum tax, and tries to resolve that over time. i think that's a terrific idea and we need to move forward on. that but it does some things that i don't think many people in my district would be favorable for. many people in my district look at the tax policy and say it's incredibly complicated and complex. this budget moves the tax system from six tiers to 10 tiers and dramatically i will increases the complexity of -- dramatically increases the complexity of our tax code. it also changes the death tax to a 65% death tax. it puts uncle sam squarely on the coffins and uncle sam is waiting for my cut. i think it's the wrong way to go. there's a large carbon tax that's included with this. with gas prices going up, energy prices on the rice, i don't think -- rise, i don't think this is a time to increase the price of energy again in that. it also raises taxes on mcdonald's and on fast food

places. to be able to punish them, i guess, for supplying food to people that are on the run. but it increases taxes on that and provides public funding for elections so that people that running for office like myself and others will actually get public funding for that. which many people don't want to be a part of. it does also provide state flexibility, though, but it's state flexibility for a new system of health care oversight, we'd like to see it have state flexibility for things like medicaid and medicare and such. with that i would oppose this and support the house republican budget. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from california, mr. honda. mr. honda: my next speaker hails from southern california. the gentlewoman, ms. chu, for one minute. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. chu: this budget is about fairness. where everyone, not just a special few, can succeed. while the republican budget ends the medicare guarantee, the budget for all makes no cuts to medicare, medicaid or social

security. while their budget slashes pell grants, leaving one million students struggling, the budget for all actually increases investments in education. while their budget destroys 4.1 million jobs in just two years, the budget for all actually puts two million more people back to work by investing in infrastructure. the republicans do all this to keep tax breaks for big oil and provide an extra $150,000 for millionaires. the budget for all creates a fairer system by asking those who benefited most from our economy to pay a sensible share. the budget for all ensures everyone can achieve the american dream if they just work hard and play by the rules. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock. mr. mcclintock: we have no more speakers. i'll reserve time until the gentleman -- the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from california, mr. honda.

mr. honda: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to call upon the gentlelady from maryland to speak for a minute and 20 seconds. the chair: the gentlelady from maryland is recognized for one minute and 20 seconds. mr. edwards: thank you, mr. chairman. budgets are about priorities and the budget for -- edsedseds thank you, mr. chairman. budgets are about -- ms. edwards: thank you, mr. chairman. budgets are about priorities. investing in our infrastructure, education, investing in our future. the budget for all, the progressive caucus budget, also makes significant investments in our military that actually prepare our defense forces for the 21st century. the budget for all is about priorities. and make no mistake, the republican budget sets completely different priorities. it says to our seniors, we want to you pay more out of your pocket for medicare, destroys medicare as we know it. creates a system that's not fair, where young people who want to go to college won't be able to do that because there won't be pell grants available for them. the republican budget says to

you that if you actually want to work hard and play by the rules, that you're not going to be treated fairly. it's time for us to have a budget that reflects the priorities of the american people, that makes investments in the american people and the budget for all makes those investments. and i urge my colleagues to read the budget, read the budget for all and support the budget for all, the progressive caucus budget, that makes important investments in the american peeg people and does not destroy -- american people and does not destroy medicare as we know it. with that i yield. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, continues to reserve. the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. honda has six minutes remaining. mr. honda: i'd like to have the gentlelady from texas, sheila jackson lee, speak for one minute and 20 seconds. . the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute and 20

seconds. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman for his leadership. i rise to support the congressional progressive caucus budget and the republican budget, according to the economic policy institute is a job killer, 1.3 million jobs will be lost in 2013. and 4.1 million jobs will be lost in 2014. it will also, will eliminate access to health care for women, dealing with reproductive health and coverage of family planning services and cut $1.7 trillion from medicaid. but the budget for all will provide a direct opportunity for school proifment corps and student job corps creating jobs and save tricare and personnel and the c.b.c. budget doesn't impact wages for our soldiers

but ends the war in afghanistan and iraq and extends the earned income tax credit and independent child care credit, responsibly and ends all of our military presence, but more importantly, it creates an atmosphere for economic improvement by providing jobs for your young people. support the budget for all. support the progressive congressional budget. i yield back. mr. honda: the gentlelady from california, congresswoman laura richardson. the chair: for how much time? mr. honda: one minute and 20 seconds. ms. richardson: i rise today in strong support of the progressive caucus alternative budget. this budget as a member on the transportation committee would help us to be able to create once and for all the

infrastructure bank that we need that would allow us to attract public and private partnership. it would outline a plan to put two million individuals back to work and my colleagues highlighted what some of those would be. some of those would include the public school rehabilitation projects, park improvement corps and student jobs corps. mr. speaker, the budget will assist us to be able to responsibly act to reduce our budget deficit but also maintain our domestic priorities. this budget is the right budget and will protect our fragile recovery and invest in our future and i reserve the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman from california, mr. honda is recognized. mr. honda: to the gentleman from michigan, i would like to allocate a minute and a half.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. conyers: tonight, i want to commend my friend from the other side of the aisle, starting with mr. tom mcclintock of california and those who are with him this evening because what has happened is that we have begun to see that between the leaders and the progressive caucus and those who can't possibly vote for the progressive caucus bill are still finding things that we can agree on. for example, is there anybody on the leader of the other side of

the aisle who does not believe that we should not invest in our children's education by increasing education, training and social services? we all agree on that. does anybody on the other side of the aisle, mr. speaker, who doesn't believe in our budget makes no cuts to medicare, medicaid and social security benefits? these beginnings of agreements -- we all on both sides agree that we must responsibly and expeditiously end our military presence in iraq and afghanistan and i congratulate the member leading on the other side. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized.

mr. honda has 2 1/4 minutes remaining. mr. honda: i would like to reserve and offer the rest of the time to our closer, the gentleman from arizona, the great representative grijalva. >> i thank the chairman for his work on the budget. the republican majority is asking the american people to once more accept the premise that a trickle-down theory of economics is the path to solvency, balanced budget and fiscal responsibility. well, this theory has promoted -- all it has done is create a dry opportunity for the middle class in this country. unemployment is up and has increased the number of poor and

unemployed in this country. and this kind of insecurity has led us to the situation we are in. the progressive budget, budget for all, re-introduces something very fundamental to the american people. its values and moral imperative has made us a great country. there should be no privileged group that -- accept 40% to 50% from the tax cuts. that is needed in this society and our budget asks for shared burden and shared responsibility. we create jobs, we frontload jobs in this. we are about reducing the deficit and invest in the american people. we invest in our people, our greatest resource. we save and promote social

security, medicare and medicaid from the destructive plan that's being promoted by the republican majority. this budget for all by the progressive caucus that we are providing the american people and this congress with a choice. do we repeat the mistakes of the pass and pass a budget that is being recommended by the republicans that take us down the same destructive path we have been on or go in a direction that promotes equity, fairness, fiscal responsibility and more importantly puts the american people back to work and offers their families the opportunities we have been able to benefit. the progressive caucus is a budget of choice, a budget of fairness and above all returns us to value as an america. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, is recognized. mr. mcclintock: i think the reason these times are so i am

passioned because we have arrived when two different visions of society are competing for our nation's future and reflected in the budget. america's prosperity spring from uniquely american principles of personal freedom and responsibility and limited government. america's founders founded that people are able to make their own choices and take responsibility for their own decisions and lead their own lives with a minimum of government interference and intrusion. when someone needs help, we give that help. when we ask them to extend themselves when they can. no one person or group is more or less worthy than the other. we are americans. we will be judged on our own merits and we'll make our own

choice is including what kind of car we'll drive, toilets in our homes, how we will raise our children, what we'll have for dinner tonight. today there is a different vision, that of a compulsory society where our individual rights are subordinated to the individual rights where they are forced to bail out the decisions of others and where consumers are compelled to purchase the products or underwrite the losses of politically favored companies. under this vision, the purpose of government is not to protect individual freedom but to improve society however those in power decide it should be improved, to take from those to give to those that are deserving or take from each according to their abilities and give to each according to their needs. that's what this is all about. not more than 100 steps, thomas

jefferson revealed the resources of the nation and asked, what more is necessary to make us a happy and prosperous people. a wise and frugal government shall restrain men shall regulate their own improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. this is the sum of good government. this is the path of prosperity put forth by the house budget committee and let us be clear, the various democratic plans fundamentally reject these principles and replace with values against with those that build our nation. that is the question that our generation must decide in all of its forms including the question put to us today by this substitute amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment

offered by the gentleman from california, mr. honda. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. honda: ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition. >> i ask that the committee do now rise. the chair: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration directs me to report that it has come to no

resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration house concurrent resolution 112 and has come to no resolution thereon. the motion is on the committee rise? for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? >> i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted.

it gets underway at 8:30 a.m. eastern live on c-span2. at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3, the senate energy committee on rising gas prices and what motorists can expect to pay in the months ahead. the u.s. is suspending plant food aid to north korea because the west said its north korea is launching a long range missile test.

the supreme car wrapped up three days of oral arguments on the constitutionality of the health care law. the court that two issues today. it will decide if you can deem part of the law unconstitutional and keep the other parts in place. or whether the entire lot will need to be dismantled. the court took up the question of the question of the medicaid program. those arguments are later tonight. >> sunday, see the winners of the c-span student kim documentary competition on the theme, the constitution and you. it will meet the students that created them on washington journal each day.

the house committee holds a hearing. send ath koreans will satellite into space to mark the anniversary of its founder. some claim this is a long-range missile test. this hearing is 90 minutes. the chairman is california ehan.essman mckeow >> the meeting will come to order. the morning. the house armed services committee meets today to receive testimony about the security position. our witnesses are peter levoi. and gen. james thurman, commander, u.s. forces, career. this is our first opportunity to

have a dedicated hearing on this topic and i cannot think of a more opportune time. the president's new defense strategy underscores the importance of a larger asia- pacific theater. northeast asia is a dynamic region of key importance to the regional stability and u.s. national security interests. what is more, the coming year will bring a number of leadership transitions for north korea, and china, japan, and russia. although north korea -- the north korean regime is willing to start its own citizens, has the world's largest army. they have more than 1 million

active-duty personnel and thousands of artillery systems, tanks, armored personnel carriers, aircraft, and surface combatants. more than 70% of north korea's combat power is positioned within 90 miles of the demilitarized zone. this puts our 280,000 troops and 24 million citizens of soleoul within the lethal reach. the regime will stop missile testing and uranium enrichment and allow inspectors to return to the nuclear facility in exchange for nutritional aid. two weeks ago, north korea said it would launch a long-range rocket into space in april. a clear violation of their agreement with the administration. this is typical behavior shown by the regime. a cycle of provocations and reconciliations, designed to get

what they want without giving up their nuclear program. it is clear that the same aggressive cycle will continue under the new north korean dictator. there have been unable or unwilling to bring the allied back to the negotiation table. meanwhile, there are reports that north korea and iran are working together in the production of ballistic missiles. in contrast, south street -- korea is a vibrant, democratic nation that contributes to global security. south korea hosted the 2012 nuclear security summit. our troops, stationed in south korea, form the backbone of our mutual defense treaty. promote regional stability, and promote and protect u.s. national security and economic interests. the readiness and posture of

u.s. troops on the peninsula are key to stopping a dangerous regime from destabilizing the region with unwarranted attacks. our guests, we look forward to your testimony, shedding light on the range of security matters facing us on the career of -- korean peninsula. >> thank you. i concur in your opening remarks about the importance of the region, the importance of our alliance and the danger in the threat that north korea poses to security in the region and security in the world. general thurman for -- i think you for your leadership and for those who served under him. south korea is a cragle ally and partner in many ways. our presence builds and strengthens that relationship. we're pleased to pass the caribbean free-trade agreement.

it watch closely what happens and so we appreciate your leadership and understand the incredible importance. it is a complicated job to make sure we maintain security there without rising too much to the provocations and without ignoring them. we appreciate your work and your efforts to do that. i look forward to your testimony in talking about the proposed missile launch that north korea is talking about doing in mid- april. how you see that pulling out with other partners in the region that are working within the region and what you think about china and the role they could play in trying to better contain north korea. are they becoming any more cooperative? no country in the region has greater power over north korea and china, given north korea's

dependence on china's support for energy and other issues. as the chairman mentioned, the region is important for national security strategy and a big piece of making sure that we make clear to those countries in asia that we are a power and we will maintain a presence in the region is the role we play on the korean peninsula. thank you for leadership and for all your doing to represent as well in that part of the world and i look forward to your testimony. thank you. >> thank you for inviting us here today to discuss the security situation on the korean peninsula. general thurman will provide a detailed assessment of the security landscape on the peninsula and i will concentrate on our part -- policy priorities relating to north and south korea.

for over six years, the u.s. has maintained a presence on the trade peninsula we must never forget that more than 36,000 members of the u.s. military gave their lives in support of this mission during the korean war. today, the u.s.-korean alliance continues to be a cornerstone of u.s. strategy in the asia- pacific region and at its most basic level, the condition of our alliance remains as if today as it was six decades ago. the department of defense has rebalance toward the asia- pacific region. it is a reaffirmation of our commitment to our korean ally and our mission on the korean peninsula. as president obama stated during a joint press conference with president lee two days ago, the u.s. will play a larger and

longer-term role in shaping the region and its future. the cornerstone is our strong alliances including our alliance with the republic of korea. we will continue to the u.s.- iraq alliance, make fortunes -- enhanced presence, power production and deterrence in the region. north korea oppose a provocative behavior, large conventional military, proliferation activity and pursuit of asymmetric advantages through its ballistic missile and weapons of mass destruction program including uranium enrichment continue to present a serious threat to the u.s. or -- our allies in the region as a whole. it was almost two years ago that north korea sank the naval vessel. that coupled with the on provoke showing of the island in

november 2010 provides a reminder that p'yongyang is willing to utilize military capabilities with deadly consequences. these incidents demonstrate that the u.s. and iraq need to take further steps to bolster deterrence and preserve security. we're working closely with iraq -- with our allies and forces to ensure any responses to provocation are effective and appropriate and integrated into the appliance -- the plans and connected from an alliance perspective. through our policy committee, we made in delhi to identify ways in which the full range of alliance capabilities including conventional forces, missile defense, nuclear capabilities, strategy and doctrine can be leveraged to maximize deterrence. the potential for a north korean act of provocation in 2012 remains a major concern.

the april 15 centennial celebration commemoration provide a milestone for north korea to try to show it has become a strong and prosperous nation. kim jong un in establishing his legitimacy perhaps through a provocative act or display of force is a responsibility. the upcoming elections in april and december are opportunities for p'yongyang to disrupt and potentially influence south korean political outcomes. our suspicions about north korea using its celebrations this year to enhance its missile program were confirmed when north korea announced on march 16 that it plans to conduct a missile launched between april 12 and 16. this is highly provocative because it manifests north korea's desire to test and

expand its long-range missile capability. in addition, the launch, if it occurs, would be in direct violation of p'yongyang's international obligations including the u.s. council in resolutions which prohibit north korea from conducting any launches that use ballistic missile technology. north korea's announcement is also troublesome because only two weeks prior aye android 29 after three rounds of talks, north korea has agreed to implement a moratorium on lunch -- a long-range missile launches. the u.s. made it clear that a satellite launch would be a deal breaker. let me turn briefly if you would permit me one more minute to south korea. over the last year, the u.s. and -- has sought to transfer the alliance so that it remains viable but also regionally and

globally. we have frequently consulted and coordinated with our counterparts across a variety of issues with -- for the transfer of control and the relocation of u.s. forces. to insure that the alliance remains, our countries have a comprehensive plan under a strategic alliance, 2015 framework to transition wartime operational control from the u.s. joint chiefs of staff. this will maintain an enduring u.s. defense commitment and ability. as part of that effort, general thurman will speak to this with more depth. we're willing to relocate from

the north of seoul to centralized locations in the south. this improves efficiency, reduces costs, contributed to the political sustainability, and enhances projection -- protection and survivability by placing the majority of personnel and equipment outside the effective range of north korean artillery. thank you. >> thank you. general firman. >> think you, -- thank you mr. chairman. and -- thank you for this opportunity to update you on the un command combined forces command and the u.s. forces, korea. it is a great honor to lead the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marine serving our country in the republic of korea. i think the members of this

committee for their support. this is the finest military partnership i have experienced in my 37-year career. together our military to tears aggression and maintains peace and stability on the korean peninsula. military presence and the republic supports u.s. national interests and a key ally in northeast asia. since the u.s. and the republic of korea forged an alliance in battle over 60 years ago, the republic of korea has become a vibrant democracy. economic success and global security partner. currently serving bositis in afghanistan and off the horn of africa. in stark contrast, one of the world's poorest, most closed and most militarized countries, north korea lies less than 20 miles from the northern seoul.cts of awiy = =

this has lead to uncertainty. the new leader appears to be following the pattern of his father and grandfather. this is an announcement to launch a satellite with a ballistic missile and their rhetoric denouncing the nuclear security summit and alliance military exercises. these actions are increasing tensions on the peninsula. additionally, north korea continues to adhere to its military first policy. they maintain the fourth largest conventional military force in the world. the world's largest special operating force and significant long-range artillery capabilities. over 70% of their combat powers rayed near the zone.

the development of these asymmetric capabilities and the forward staging [unintelligible] with a little warning. the recent appearances including a visit to the joint security area continue to stress his role as military commander and further reinforce the importance of three places on this military first policy. it is undetermined whether or not he will change any north korean strategies or policies in the future. this keeps our forces separated. the 16 state members maintained the armistice from the republic of korea, promoting stability and investigating an alleged armistice violations. the participation of the states and -- demonstrates a commitment of the international community

to stability on the korean peninsula and enhances our ability to successfully deter aggression. our deterrent capability is based on u.s. and military readiness. this is our primary focus. i have conducted a thorough review in clerk -- including two combined exercises and i have determined our forces remain ready to defend the republic of korea. peninsula. it is also essential that we maintain u.s. force readiness. congress asked me to review and force relation ship -- this is unaffordable under the

current construct. our relocation plans are on track. i intend to execute them. i will continue to review these plans to ensure the place the right capabilities in the right places to meet the operational requirements on the peninsula. the charts to maintain the armistice, deter aggression, defend the republic of correct, and take care of our warriors and families is my primary concern. i thank you for your support of our soldiers, sailors, airlines -- air men, and marines and the family serving. thank you. >> you commented about a deal breaker. what is our deal and what happens if they violate it and break the deal.

>> thank you for that question. we have reached an agreement with the north koreans and they enable us to provide food assistance to north korea. we have been -- it has been mportant to us to de0-link humanitarian assistance including nutritional assistance from politics. and from north korea's provocative behavior. that has been our intent all along. however, when we recently reached to this deal, this to prohibit north korean missile launches and we indicated at the time that a satellite launch we would interpret as a mislaunch. the north koreans have announced it will launch a missile.

we're working closely with allies and other partners in the region to try to discourage north korea from launching dismissal as they have intended. we have now no confidence that the monetary mechanisms to ensure that the food assistance goes to the starving people and not the regime elite but these quatrain mechanisms we have no confidence they would abide by the understanding. >> we have suspended the nutritional -- >> we have. >> readiness is one of your top priorities of you have stated. the new strategic guidance shifts the focus to asia but we have not seen an increase in

resources to reflect that. we understand that each of our contingency plans is under review to assess the level of resources required. assuming you were engaged in a similar activity, can you tell us how prepared the u.s. forces are to respond to possible aggressive actions by north korean military, and what are your top 3 readiness issues for u.s. forces? >> first off, i can tell you we are prepared to defend the peninsula and can do that. we can repel any type of attack should the north koreans decide to do that. i am confident based on what i've seen through the exercises and the fact what the capabilities we have. i would be more than happy to go

in a closed session and discuss specific readiness concerns i have and can go into further detail on that. in response to overall readiness, i would tell you that on the u.s. side, the u.s. army has done a very good job of modernizing yes with the forces we have on the peninsula. we have the very best equipment, top-of-the-line equipment and we have done the same thing with the u.s. air force and the maritime forces. i am confident the capabilities we have there, we can defend the peninsula. >> thank you very much. for the members, immediately following our questioning here in open session, we will move into a closed session. it is scheduled for 12:00 p.m. but if we finish earlier, we will move into it at that time.

fracking member smyth. >> thank you, mr. chairman. if you could elaborate on the consequences of the missile launch if north korea goes through with it. they have not shown themselves to be responsive to international pressure. how do you see that playing out? how will others in the region respond? what should we do as a result? >> thank you for that question. we are concerned about the possibility of the missile launch that the north koreans have announced that they would indeed conduct and as you implied, a number of countries in the area and a broader area are concerned about this. the north koreans indicated there will launch in a south for direction and -- of the bill will launch in the south were direction. we do not have any confidence on

the stability of the missile or where the impact will be. a number of countries could potentially be affected. the debris could fall on other countries and cause casualties. this fact -- and this affects south korea, japan, okinawa, and the intended impact is somewhere close to the philippines or maybe indonesia. this is now an issue that not only concerns the south koreans and of course us, the japanese, but more broadly, everybody in the asia-pacific has become concerned about north korea's roll -- growing missile capabilities. especially as they are continuing to develop their nuclear weapons capability. i cannot speculate on specifically what measures can be taken if indeed they will conduct the test but i can assure you that we are consulting with all the countries affected about measures to be taken. >> thank you. general thurman, you mentioned

the south korean military. it is my understanding their capability has improved and where they're at and how that might impact the size of our presence. as a partner with them, we're helping them to be in the strongest possible position but if they grow stronger, perhaps it gives us the ability to downsize or reduce what contribution we would make. how do you see that balance playing out? >> ranking member smith, first, i do believe the military is a professional and competent force. they have modernized their ground forces significantly. they have done the same thing with their air forces by adding their f-15 and 16's.

they have done the work with their maritime forces. and so they are going through that process right now. they have made some investments as they continue to look to improve and modernize their force and we have seen evidence of that. as far as our forces, we have an agreed number of 28,500 on the peninsula. i would recommend given the current conditions, as we move toward operational control eventually in 2015 to maintain that level of force. i think it is always -- also prudent to look at our

capabilities and make sure we are capabilities based as we have to offset some of the capabilities they do not have currently. >> ok. thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i want to thank you and the ranking member for having this meeting and your questions on this. one of the things we know is in early 2011, the secretary of defense robert gates said ballistic missiles could pose a threat to the u.s. within five years. what it -- what, if anything, does the launch of the three rockets tell us about its ballistic missile technology advances and to your knowledge, are within four years of north career fielding a functional intercontinental ballistic missile? >> first off, the continued development and willingness of the north korean regime there

to test ballistic missiles, and we have seen that continue for a period of time is a major concern of ours. it is -- has the potential to destabilize the region and as you point out, left unchecked, their development continues could pose a serious threat to us. it is something i think we have got to maintain close vigilance on and obviously, work to try to dissuade them from the continued development of that and maybe focus on feeding their people is what i would say. i would be more than happy to go into full details of what we're seeing in the closed session on their full development, of what we know. >> are there any projections on timetables you could give

outside of a classified setting as to what we have heard or seen as far as the projections, when there will be on target for these missiles? >> i would not want to go into the exact timetables in here. it is of concern of their continued willingness to test us. >> one other question. when we know there is a good cooperation between the u.s. they do a wonderful job there. sometimes it goes unpunished the most. how you feel out of the military to military context? is it better? worse?

>> the u.s. alliance is as strong as it has ever been. they welcome the u.s. presence. we are a stabilizing influence in that region. i think it is very important. there is no doubt this alliance was forged on a bloody battlefield. we learned many lessons. they welcome our presence there. >> last week, at the south korean president announced he thought they would reach an agreement with the united states on extending the missile range which is limited to 300 kilometers. can you tell us what your assessment is about south korea's missile requirements

and why there leaders see it as urgent? what is your take on it? >> i will refer to the doctor. they have expressed desires for the longer range missiles. >> week and the south koreans have had very good discussions about dealing with their growing missile inventory and the threat it poses. we have a process that we have in place. there have been numerous meetings. we have identified a comprehensive array of measures to take to deal with this threat. this is an area where we are in sync with the south koreans. this process has not concluded. >> thank you. i yield back the balance of my

time. >> thank you. >> thank you. can you outline for us to this whole -- the concern of non proliferation out there in the peninsula? can you talk to us about whether our current policies and programs could effectively counter proliferation? how are the country's doing a round -- how are the countries around north korea feeling about their ability to have nuclear arms? are they staying close to the whole issue of non proliferation or are they antsyng a little bit and se because things are moving along

faster than we had hoped? >> these are concerning to everybody. with an extended range of missiles, and north korea would have the ability to put nuclear warheads on. that affects not only their neighbor but other countries in the broader asia-pacific area. >> we have been able to hold them off. most of the country say we could contain this are we would be pushed back. how are they feeling now? >> it has been a consistent goal to discourage them from their programs. this objective that led this to this talks that we had on the 24th of february in beijing, to get the north koreans to commit

to suspend a moratorium, that is why we are so troubled by this possible missile tests going forward. >> turning to another subject of warfare, i know that north korea is increasing its efforts in that arena. i know that we have a close relationship with south korea and that we share a lot of information with them. what is the process? are we working hand in hand? are we doing enough to ensure that we counter attack what may be coming out of north korea with respect to cyber warfare? >> i would be happy to go on to

the details. i would tell you that we work hand in hand with the iraq military on the protection of our networks, particularly looking at an opera ability. i ask them to realize that this is as important to us and our maritime operations. we have raised the awareness on that. we're doing that on a daily basis with the iraq military. >> the other question i have would be more sensitive and for a closed session. i will end right there. thank you. >> thank you. thank you for being here.

i have a unique perspective. i was honored to be on a delegation where we visited them. i have seen the contrast between the totalitarian state to see the success of the republic of korea. it is inspiring. we have had to travel by helicopter because of the heavy traffic. it is a classic example of the success of the free market. at the same time, it has really led to a concern that i have about the role of china and russia. it would seem like it would be in their interest of that there would be a level of security,

military to have summer firms -- to have some reforms. what is the role of china and russia? how have their actions been matched? >> i could answer that first. we looked at china to use this influenced constructively to pressure and cajoled the north koreans to adopt the reforms you mentioned which are really critical to meet the needs of the people. it is really a human tragedy that is occurring in north korea and for north korea to abide by the standards of

international conduct and not impose the threat to the broader asia-pacific region. we have not been entirely satisfied with china's activities. this is an issue that we do discuss with china regularly. we hope that china will take a more constructive approach. we also discussed this with russia and other countries. >> south korea employs 2% of the people in china. that is a lot of people. it seems that they would see the benefit of having a more normal regime. i appreciate your efforts there. i would also like to know your assessment in regard to the transition from kim jong-un to kim jong-un.

the new leader recently places military on high alert with the understanding that it was not to prepare for conflict but to surrender. could you comment on its? ? >> we see quite a bit of rhetoric on a daily basis coming out of north korea. my sense that this succession has occurred with kim jong-un so, the leader, has been given e title. i think he is being closely advised by his uncle and some of the other old elite advisers that are shepherding him along.

it is unclear what policies he is going to fall. follow. i can go into specific details in a closed forum. my sense is the policies they have taken is not going to change. i appreciate your efforts so much. to have the face when indeed north korea could develop itself into a positive entity. i had the privilege of visiting with troops from the republic of korea in afghanistan for the reconstruction teams. these are professionals.

>> thank you. >> thank you. back to some of the operational issues in south korea. can you talk a little bit about the decision to delay or to stop it, and a little bit about the cost estimates that you foresee and what that might mean for normalization? >> first off, i was asked to do a good review of the current policy of the tour normalization. we authorized families. that was a cap that was put off and this last national defense

authorization act. this would be additional requirements and additional costs. i do not think under the current environment that it is feasible. i am ok with leading 4645 families. when we built camp humphries which was part of the land partnership plan, that plan was based on the authorized 4645 families. i stay at the right now. the biggest issue that i have is the constant turnover of personnel, primarily army. we are on one-year tours. you can imagine the turn that is ongoing everyday. we lose about 600-700 soldiers

a month that a rotating in or out, back to the continental united states. >> about every month 600 go home? >> yes, sir. i have asked them to look at how we can build readiness at the best value and see what we can do. i'm very mindful of the cost. i do not want to create a requirement that is not operational. >> on the relocation plan, what do you see as anticipated problems tax d.c. any more location plan?

>> it was a u.s. initiative. that is on track. i am looking at some of those capabilities to make sure that the positioning is right, ie the firebird grade -- fire brigade. we will have both of those programs completed by 2016. that is what the estimate is right now. i will be more than happy to provide to the cost break out. i would like to take that for the record. >> anything in the setup that causes you concern about meeting that goal? >> the only thing not associated with the land partnership program, there is a requirement

in the 13 budget for a battalion headquarters for a battalion that is going to be deployed from the state's to force postures. >> it is not originally anticipated. you have to find some way to accommodate that. >> that is correct. >> that is all i have. >> thank you. it is timely that we are having this hearing. as to the to the news of what has been coming out of the talks the president attended, we know the news also reported this.

the united states warned that north korea would achieve nothing of threats and provocations. they removed the long-range rocket. north korea's threats can only be an effort to test deployments and intercontinental ballistic missile that would have the capability of reaching the united states. secretary gates said one of his concerns was the rise to the point it could threaten the mainland united states. also monday, news broke of the present have a conversation with an open microphone. he said to me data of -- theseent medvedev oon all

spaces. he said i understand your message about space, space for you. obama says this is my last election. after my election i have more flexibility. obviously, the concern that everyone has is that as a talk to north korea indicated that they are a rising threat to mainland united states. it raises the question of what is the president's secret deal to limit our defense system? the president is talking to another world leader. he will be free to have flexibility.

is this a limit on the deployment? is this a limit on our use? you can understand how everyone would be concerned as we looked to the rise of the threats of our president making any deal, especially a secret deal after the election that might affect our missile defense system. you are the acting secretary of defense. what is in this secret deal? are we to be concerned about the affects of limiting our missile defense system? >> i am not aware of any secret deal. we do take the growth in north korea's capability seriously.

we are working closely with south korea operationally and of other countries in the region. >> perhaps it is not a secret deal to you. it to secure for us until it was caught on the microphone. are you aware of the deal the president has with president medvedev that would reveal to us that would limit our missile defense capability in use or scope that is a serious concern to this committee? are you aware of the subject matter of the missile defense deal? >> if you are not, why are you not? >> i am not. we do believe that the adaptive approach is very much alive. it is very much part of our

comprehensive approach to deal with the threat posed by the north koreans. it is something we are committed to. in the closed session i would be happy to describe the steps we're taking. >> you are an appointee by the president, are you not that's what i am. i would appreciate if you ask the present -- present what are the details. we have grave concerns as to a president having this on air defense systems. i would greatly appreciate that. >> thank you for being here this morning. it is always good to see you. one concern that i and others have had has been whether or

not there is any intention of going down further the u.s. presence of troops. are there any contingency plans to do that? it would play into that kind of scenario. >> there are no plans that i am aware of that draws down any forces on the peninsula. we are staying at 28,500. there may be some adjustments. those adjustments would be to improve our overall ones. there are no plans i am aware of. >> in terms of the agreement we

have, particularly for the stability of the peninsula, are there any concerns? i apologize for not having been here. i have another meeting. are there any changes that we contemplate based on the new leadership in north. ? >> i believe the alliance is as strong as it ever has been. the concerns that the south koreans relayed to me is the continued willingness of part of the north koreans to continue to

test ballistic missiles. right now this is probably one of the biggest things. they have not forgotten the sinking that occurred in marta 2010. they are very watch all of that and mindful of that. they have put a lot of emphasis on the military for overall readiness. >> in terms of the progress that had been made prior to the il, are there jong-un il

any indications that those kinds of efforts are in lieu of the concern that you have? >> i have not seen any great change as a result of the succession with the new leaders. the i would welcome any discussion. i think the parties can discuss their differences. that is always a good thing. i have not seen any change. i defer to the doctor for any of that. >> north korea is an

authoritarian regime. what we anticipate this provocative behavior because this seems to be the way they go to the population that is suffering terribly. they cannot meet the needs of the population so they resort to provocative behavior and despite efforts to stabilize relationships with the north, and now because of an internal political dynamic, it appears they are inclined to take this

provocative steps. most specifically the long-range missile. >> i was going back and forth with my aunt who has a nephew serving in korea. his name is in jake butler. i know you were very proud of what you gentlemen accomplished -- ladies and gentlemen accomplished. i want to speak very briefly about the air force base that we're very proud of. can you speak about the program and what it means in a potential conflict with north korea?

>> it is without going into the classified portion of it. what i am looking for is i have a set of priorities intelligence requirements. i welcome any system that is going to help me answer those requirements. it is an added capability that does help us on the peninsula. >> my cousin is honor to serve. his mom wanted to ask what i was issued live ammunition. >> thank you. i apologize for being tardy.

no disrespect to you gentlemen. i wanted to get the thinking behind the linkage of the missile test that is coming up next month. and our decision about whether to follow. i am not sure what i think about that. let me play devil's advocate. one argument might be that it punishes the north korean people without having any significant impact on the no. 3 leadership and would further intensified anti-western hostility and therefore strengthen the hand domestically

of the north korean leadership to engage in such unwelcome activities from the international stage. how would you assess that argument? >> it is regrettable that it is not moving forward. we are prepared to provide that. this is not intended to be a link to any movement by the north koreans. the fact that north korea so brazenly violated commitments that we recently agreed to in the discussions in beijing. it indicates they're not reliable and we cannot expect them to meet other international commitment including the commitment that they have agreed to that are associated with the

provision of nutritional assistance to the needy population. >> i understand the rationale that they does honor their agreement so they really abandoned their right to claim what they would get under the agreement. the question is whether they think it will be effective. >> we do not believe that nutritional assistance should be leverage to achieve a political outcome. it is a humanitarian effort. the reason why we are not providing that is because our confidence has been diminished. we do not use it as a leverage.

>> within the confines of this discussion, how do you assess the role of the people's republic of china in dealing with this outlaw behavior by no. 3 in? are they more helpful than not? are they more harmful than not? are they neutral? what do you think the optimal behavior is that how close are they to obtaining a? -- is? how close are they to obtaining it? >> china has more influence than any other country in ridgy in north korea. we have been talking to the chinese and consulting regularly with the chinese about how best to influence the north koreans.

this influence has not been as affected today as he would have liked. we continue to consult with the chinese that have relations with north korea about their behavior. as our partnership with china deepens, we hope that china will see the interest and. of this partnership. >> unless you see everything as a zero sum game between the u.s. and the prc, this kind of instability cannot possibly be good for them. it is certainly not good for the rest of the world. i hope we will continue these efforts to find common ground that would encourage them to act with the community of

nations. >> thank you. i want to say say steadfast and loyal. i was stationed in korea in 1995. i think we continue to see these routings. there is the honoring of the commitments. do you ever see in into this babylonian experiments of international extortion that is coming out? >> we hope to see an end to that. we're using everything possible. it is a really recalcitrant regime. because of their on external compulsion's which are out of step with the 21st century, it leads them to this provocative

behavior. only when they can reform internally can they get international behavior to a line to acceptable standards. there comes a time when it translate into weakness and must be ended in order for us to stop this crazy psycho. georgia.ple guy from that is how we call it. >> let me say that i would not characterize this as a benevolent or week. >> they perceive it as weak. >> i do not think so. >> do you believe that the incredible debt situation where china holds 30% of our debt, we're almost at an economic disadvantage against china.

does that have an adverse effect in dealing with north. ? >> we do have a strong partnership with china. we're consulting with them on a range. we believe that china can be an effective partner. >> you think china sees itself as being able to be somewhat belligerent because they do found this control >> is always taught me to questions that you have to answer when your

briefing a plan. what do you see as the most likely courses of action coming out in north. ? >> the first thing i worry about every day is a miscalculation on somebody's part that causes a conflict that we have planned for. this is the first thing. i worry about the a semester capabilities that the north koreans have, whether it be was special operations, forces, or the introduction of this. these are some of the things i worry about. i think we're postured very well to repel another attack. they have a considerable another

of indirect fire systems. the importance of staying ready and remaining vigilant is very important. this is 24 hours a day, 24 days a week. >> i yield back. >> thank you. i like to thank our witnesses. i have to spend most of my committee where i'm chairman of the space and aeronautics. i've not been able to find the questioning. i am sure he talked about his visit. i was a part of that. this was a wonderful trip.

korea was on their along with the philippines. everywhere we went, one of our denominators and concerns was china. what was our u.s. posture going to be? lehman to the posture toward our allies thought we were retreating are falling back a little too far for their general welfare. they would do if they had to do to take care of the stability. i hope -- the president talked about an emergent threats. the major that these were continuously open. it the next thing you hear we're talking about another hearing. we hear that that the chinese are even building want to go up

into there. it causes me some concern. hopefully we will perhaps continue to focus on their behavior and expose it. all the while, of their increase is on their military. we're talking half a trillion dollars over the next decade. we are staring down the double barreled shotgun with a possibility of sequestration. i will switch gears. i like to see the cost benefit. i know we're doing some realigning. we're moving further back. i did not have a chance to visit the new site. are we getting the best value for our dollar? we kept this peace for decades now.

i know where ever the u.s. military has been, that is one of the most viable pieces of property left. are we getting at a nice piece of property for false appeasement? >> thank you for that question. i think we're getting a very good deal with the iraq government. the property, we will keep a residual because that is important with our day today in business that we do. i interface daily with the iraq chairman of the military under ministry of defence. we will have a small footprint.

regard to the cost, there are shared cost. i would be happy to give you a detailed cost break out. i believe we're getting a very good deal. it i believe the government welcomes u.s. presence. we are a stabilizing influence as long as we are fully deployed. that would be something that needs to be factored into all of these discussions. it is important to maintain stability. i think iraq has been more than willing. >> i know there were very

receptive and supportive of u.s. troops. doing this. hopefully i have made it clear. this is this such grave importance. is important we gather as much information as possible. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. i do not know what went on before me. and how much is being done by it. what is their shared responsibility?

>> first off, they're paying for that. costsll be some ancillary associated with our communications and specific requirements related to our unique requirements for our communications. that is the irresponsibility of hours. it will be required in the future.

>> thank you. i was interested in your comments about what keeps you up at night worrying about the operational forces. these are the things that stood out to me as i read your testimony. i did not realize that north korea had the world's largest special operations force at the president back and call. i wanted to focus in on the other two areas. the same regarding the cyber that the newest addition is a cyber warfare capability that north. employ eight.

we do that north korea employee -- edition is a cyber warfare capability that north korea employee. i was wondering, what are we doing to help counter this threat? >> this goes more to the threat of what we seek. >> i am concerned that they have deployed against our military. i would like to know more about what happened there.

let me move to the weapons of mass destruction. you said that the capability to manufacture a variety chemical had agents that could be delivered to artillery our missile systems. if they were to employ them, they could use pathogenic agents. this of be a tremendous problem. are these affected tolls to mitigate these threats? what more can we do? >> i place a lot of emphasis on

our overall, biological defense training. we train on that. i am confident we have the right capabilities. secondly in terms of bio detection, we have placed a lot of emphasis on our installation. it is important to keep that current. they are very good with their capabilities. we train on those type of environment. i am confident in regard to that. i do not see the north koreans giving up. this is something we have to deal with given the current set of conditions.

>> thank you very much. i think what the department brings to bear are three very important things. one is a strong to deter them from these massive distractions. the indicated a robust defense capability. this is what the department of defense brings to bear. north korea is an outline there. the president was just in seoul over the last couple of days. over 50 of the world leaders

were there. barry getting there to increase that danger. we're supporting broader international diplomacy. i want to extend the discussion and what you are finding in terms of the morale of these unaccompanied tors. the turnover is about 600 or 700 service members every month. is that normal?

>> first off, most of the turnover we see that is occurring out of that 600-700 are the lower in listed great. as you imagine, that constant turnover affects the crew stability inside the second division. that is something that the commander has to deal with. in regard to the normalization, we have roughly around 3800 families that are command's sponsored. there are another 1700 s soldiers that are non command's sponsored. that is really what we have.

we have not achieve that as of yet. i looked at could we afford more families over there be on the 4645? i determined that is not feasible at this time. >> do you have other concerns that are affecting the quality of life for service members that are there? e do not necessarily see those numbers getting to that level. do you see major differences? >> we have a threat to the north. we have a well stated mission.

i have not seen a decline in any morale issues. this requires active leaders, leaders that are sensitive to the needs of their service members. that is where i put my effort. i am making sure that if there are any quality of life issues, that we try to resolve its. >> the people that have been deployed, are there numbers at the height of some of the deployments that are going into iraq or afghanistan? >> we see a lot of returnees.

>> are they fighters able to accommodate some of the needs are returning soldiers? >> i have placed a lot of emphasis on back, a particular lay in regard to any type of ptsd. we are active with the programs to make sure we are quickly dealing with any service member that may have a problem. >> they're not able to go out into the economy when it comes to service providers. is that correct? >> the medical community does right ones that go out if there is some specific needs. so far they have been very good on the peninsula. >> thank you very much.

thank you for your service. >> thank you. thank you so much for joining us today and for your service. i enjoyed our visit out there. south korea was a great opportunity to go there and understand the challenges. you spoke about the north korean army having about 800 service combatants. can you tell us what other capabilities in relation to our service combatant and the japanese maritime self-defense ship's center also there in the region -- that are also there in the region? >> the theme that concerns me

most are there submarine forces. by to give early the ones on the west see. -- west sea because that are shallow waters. i can go in more details. some of this is atrophied from what i can tell. the navy maintains a robust patrol capability every day. some of the things we of but that are in affability with the u.s. fleet.

i know he has a very good relationship with the japanese. >> what means do u.s. and iraq forces have in the area of ground attack to support our men and women that served their? where are we in relation to manning requirements there in the region? there is a cap of 28,500 u.s. forces. where is this in relation to our needs? especially in the area of aviation? >> perce stuff, we do not have a

full brigade. to the the department's joint staff to adding that the italian bac that was repositioned to meet requirements for the war in iraq. i welcome that. that would help with our helicopter fleet there. in regard to our overall posture, i feel we are " very well. we're getting many of the new pieces of a quick marriages modernize. we got the best team this nation can provide as well as the bradley fighting vehicles. the stocks are in good shape. we just issued some of that out.

i am confident in regard to the ground capabilities. we're in pretty good shape. i can talk in closed sessions. i will be more than happy to talk about that. >> we talked about conventional capabilities. we made a significant investment and operations forces. are we properly positioned from a report standpoint with our special operation forces? >> with regard to special operation forces -- we have south korea, the special

operations command that works side-by-side with iraq special operations forces. iraq has a very good force. we are working to improve that. if we go to war tonight, that is what i have in addition to what would be flown in from u.s. socom. we are working with the department with regard to u.s. capabilities for soft platforms. that is one of the things if i did my assessment that i think we need to improve on. secondly, in regards to the north korean asymmetric problem -- they have the capabilities to infiltrate. that is probably one of the biggest worries i see with what they have with their forces. they could do that very quickly.

would it lead to super cells or whatever -- we can go into that in more detail in a closed form. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> mr. bartlett. >> if north korea was to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile, it could carry a nuclear weapon capable of reaching our shores and they lost it towards our nation, what would our response be? >> i cannot speculate on that hypothetical situation. we do not assess that north korea has the capability today, but we are aware that north korea is developing its long- range missile capabilities and is working on its nuclear weapons capabilities. future strength we are very concerned about. the department is considering

the best responses to this. >> what do you think north korea and expects our response to be? >> congressman, the way i look at this, and north korea uses a coercive strategy. when they use that strategy to get concessions. first off, they will not, i do not believe, given up all their capabilities in regards to ballistic missiles, both corrosive -- both coercive and a means to protect the regime. we have seen this cycle where they demand concessions, they do not get what they want, or they get what they want brigid they antagonized, the provoke, and go back into an appeased mode. we have what that on a continuous basis. my sense is that they are going to continue to use that as long

as they follow their military- force policy, which i believe goes to protect the family and the whole communist party there. >> is there not a general perception in this country, their country, and any other country watching our to the invasions that if they launched towardstic missile our shores that we would respond in kind? is that not a general perception? >> i would just say i do not know what our response is would be right now on that. >> i am not asking that. i am asking what the general perception was among observers of this process between our two countries. is there not a general perception that if they launch a nuclear weapon towards our shores that we would most likely respond in kind? >> my sense, congressman, is

that is what fuels the anxiety and concern over the north koreans having that kind of capability. it has to be dealt with in some manner. >> i think we have a robust return capability and we have national capabilities as well as capabilities in the theater. again, it is our policy to deter that kind of behavior you are talking about. while we do not assessed that they have the capability you outline today, i think you will agree the developments are something we are very concerned about. we maintain a robust capability to deter that type of action. >> are they aware of that robust deterrent capability? i think it is very unlikely that even if they have a nuclear weapon capable of reaching our shores that they would launch

it. why do they need to do that if they can simply put a medium- range missile on a ship and launched from that ship anywhere to the west coast or east coast where we have little defense and little capability of determining for certain who is responsible for it? why is that not the most likely mode of attack from north korea if, in fact, they are interested in attacking us? >> we have to be aware of a whole range of possible attacks and provocative actions the north koreans could take. over the course of history, they have pursued many different types of asymmetric means to provoke the south and us. we have to be alive to the full rate of attacks, including the ones you suggest. >> i do not think they are idiots or collectively suicidal. i think the threat is a

possibility -- they could do it tomorrow with a scud launcher they could buy on the local market and any crude nuclear weapon to take out our whole mid-elected area. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you, a gentleman. the committee will now stand in recess as we moved to close at session. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> the supreme court wrapped up three days of oral arguments today on the constitutionality

of the health care law. the court looked at the did the of constitutional issues. we will have that next on c- span. we will get reaction from outside the court. later, an iowa campaign event with vice president joe biden. >> on tomorrow morning's washington journal, new mexico senator jeff bingaman look at the health care oral argument and the debate on tax write-offs for the oil and gas industry. after that, a georgia congressman tom price on the republican 2013 budget proposal, "washington journal" like thursday at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> live sunday on "in-depth," our founding fathers and political politics. richard brookhiser.

people take your phone calls, e- mail's, and tweaks sunday at noon eastern on c-span2's booktv. >> the supreme court will decide whether the health care law is constitutional. earlier, the court talked-about whether the law could stand at the individual mandate portion is rolled on to predict unconstitutional. the seventh circuit court ruled that the mandate is unconstitutional, but the rest of the law is permissible. this oral argument is one hour 45 minutes. >> we will continue argument this morning in case number 11- 393, national federation of independent business vs. sebelius, and case 11-400, florida vs. the department of

hhs. mr. clement? >>if the individual mandate is unconstitutional, then the rest of the act cannot stand. as congress found and the federal government concedes, the community-rating and guaranteed-issue provisions of the act cannot stand without the individual mandate. congress found that the individual mandate was essential to their operation. and not only can guaranteed- issue and community-rating not stand, not operate in the manner that congress intended, they would actually counteract congress's basic goal of providing patient protection but also affordable care. you can -- if you do not have the individual mandate to force people into the market, then community rating and guaranteed issue will cause the cost of premiums to skyrocket. we can debate the order of magnitude of that, but we can't debate that the direction will be upward. we also can't debate -- >> counsel, that may well be true.

the economists are going back and forth on that issue, and the figures vary from up 10 percent to up 30. we're not in the habit of doing the legislative findings. what we do know is that for those states that found prices increasing, that they found various solutions to that. in one instance -- and we might or may not say that it's unconstitutional -- massachusetts passed the mandatory coverage provision. but others adjusted some of the other provisions. why shouldn't we let congress do that, if in fact the economists prove -- some of the economists prove right that prices will spiral? what's wrong with leaving it to -- in the hands of the people who should be fixing this, not us? >> well, a couple of questions -a couple of responses, justice sotomayor. first of all, i think that it's

very relevant here that congress had before it as examples some of the states that had tried to impose guaranteed issue and community rating and did not impose an individual mandate. and congress rejected that model. so, your question is quite right in saying that it's not impossible to have guaranteed issue and community rating without an individual mandate. but it's a model that congress looked at and specifically rejected. and then, of course, there's congress's own finding, and their finding, of course -- this is finding (i), which is 43a of the government's brief, in the appendix. congress specifically found that having the individual mandate is essential to the operation of guaranteed issue and community rating. >> that's all it said it was essential to. i mean, i'm looking at it. the exchanges. the state exchanges are information gathering facilities that tell insurers what the various policies actually mean. and that has proven to be a cost saver in many of the states who have tried it. so, why should we be striking

down a cost saver -- >> when, if what your argument is, was that congress was concerned about costs rising? >> why should we assume they wouldn't have passed an information -- >> i think a couple of things. one, you get -- i mean, i would think you're going have to take the bitter with the sweet. and if congress -if we're going to look at congress's goal of providing patient protection but also affordable care, we can't --i don't think it works to just take the things that save money and cut out the things that are going to make premiums more expensive. but at a minimum -- >> i guess, on the bottom line, is why don't we let congress fix it? >> well, let me answer the bottom line question, which is, no matter what you do in this case, at some point there's going to be -- if you strike down the mandate, there's going to be something for congress to do. the question is really what task do you want to give congress? do you want to give congress the task of fixing the statute after something has been taken out, especially a provision at the heart, or do you want to give congress the task of

fixing health care? and i think it would be better in this situation >> we're not taking -- if we strike down one provision, we're not taking that power away from congress. congress could look at it without the mandatory coverage provision and say this model doesn't work, let's start from the beginning. or it could choose to fix what it has. we're not declaring -- one portion doesn't force congress into any path. >> and, of course, that's right, justice sotomayor, and no matter what you do here, congress will have the options available. so, if you -if you strike down only the individual mandate, congress could say the next day, well, that's the last thing we ever wanted to do, so, we're going to strike down the rest of the statute immediately and then try to fix the problem. so, whatever you do, congress is going to have options. the question is -- >> well, there's such a thing as legislative inertia, isn't there? >> well, that's exactly -- >> i mean -- >> -- what i was going to say, justice scalia, which is i think the question for this court is -- we all recognize there's legislative inertia. and then the question is what's the best result in light of

that reality? >> are you suggesting that we should take on more power to the court? >> no, i -8 >> because congress would choose to take one path rather than another. that's sort of taking onto the court more power than one, i think, would want. >> and i agree. we're simply asking this court to take on, straight on, the idea of the basic remedial inquiry into severability which looks to the intent of the congress -- >> yes, i wanted to ask you about that. why do we look to the -- are you sure we look to the intent of the congress? i thought that, you know, sometimes congress says that these provisions will -- all the provisions of this act will be severable. we ignore that when the act really won't work, when the remaining provisions just won't work. now, how can you square that reality with the proposition that what we're looking for here is what would this congress have wanted? >> well, two responses, >> we can look at this court's cases on severability, and they all formulate the test a little bit differently.

>> yes, they sure do. >> but every one of them talks about congressional intent. but here's the other answer >> that's true, but is it right? >> it is right. and here's how i would answer your question, which is, when congress includes a severability clause, it's addressing the issue in the abstract. it doesn't say, no matter which provisions you strike down, we absolutely, positively want what's left. >> all right. the consequence of your proposition, would congress have enacted it without this provision, okay, that's the consequence. that would mean that if we struck down nothing in this legislation but the -- what's it called, the cornhusker kickback, okay, we find that to violate the constitutional proscription of venality, okay? [laughter] >> when we strike that down, it's clear that congress would not have passed it without that. it was the means of getting the

last necessary vote in the senate. and you are telling us that the whole statute would fall because the cornhusker kickback is bad. that can't be right. >> well, justice scalia, i think it can be, which is the basic proposition, that it's congressional intent that governs. now everybody on this court has a slightly different way of divining legislative intent. and i would suggest the one common ground among every member of this court, as i understand it, is you start with the text. everybody can agree with that. >> so mr. clement, let's start with the text. and you suggest, and i think that there is -- this is right, that there is a textual basis for saying that the guarantee issue and the community rating provisions are tied to the mandate. and you said -- you pointed to where that was in the findings. is there a textual basis for anything else, because i've been unable to find one. it seems to me that if you look at the text, the sharp dividing line is between guarantee issue, community ratings, on the one hand, everything else on the other.

>> well, justice kagan i would be delighted to take you through my view of the text and why there are other things that have to fall. the first place i would ask you to look is finding j, which is on the same page 43a. and as i read that, that's a finding that the individual mandate is essential to the operation of the exchanges. but there are other links between guaranteed issue and community rating and the exchanges. and there i think it's just the way that the exchanges are supposed to work, and the text makes this clear, is they are supposed to provide a market where people can compare community rated insurance. that's what makes the exchanges function. >> although the exchanges function perfectly well in utah, where there is no mandate. they function differently, but they function. and the question is always, does congress want half a loaf. is half a loaf better than no loaf? and on something like the exchanges, it seems to me a perfect example where half a loaf is better than no loaf. the exchanges will do something. they won't do everything that congress envisioned. >> well, justice kagan, i think there are situations where half

a loaf is actually worse, and i want to address that. but before i do it -- more broadly. but before i do that, if i could stick with just the exchanges. i do think the question that this court is supposed to ask is not just whether they can limp along and they can operate independently, but whether they operate in the manner that congress intended. and that's where i think the exchanges really fall down. because the vision of the exchanges was that if you got out of this current situation where health insurance is basically individualized price based on individualized underwriting. and you provide community rating, then it's going to be very easy for people to see, okay, well, this is a silver policy, and this is a bronze policy, and this is a gold policy. and we can, you know, just pick which insurer provides what i think is going to be the best service based on those comparable provisions. >> mr. clement, you just said something which you say a lot in your brief. you say the question is the manner in which it would have operated. and i think that's not consistent with our cases.

and i guess the best example would be booker, where we decided not to sever provisions, notwithstanding that the sentencing guidelines clearly operate in a different manner now than they did when congress passed them. they operate as advisory rather than mandatory. >> but justice kagan, i mean, i actually think booker supports our point as well, because there are two aspects of the remedial holding of booker. and the first part of it, which i think very much actually supports our point is where the majority rejects the approach of the dissent, which actually would have required nothing in the statute to have been struck, not a single word. but nonetheless, this court said, boy, if you do that, then all of the sentencing is basically going to be done by a combination of the juries and the prosecutors, and the judges are going to be cut out. and the court said the one thing we know is that's not the manner in which congress thought that this should operate. now, later they make a different judgment about the -- which particular provisions to cut out.

but i do think booker is consistent with this way of looking at it, and certainly consistent with brock, the opinion that we rely on, because there the court only reached that part of the opinion after they had already found that the must-hire provision operated functionally independent from the legislative veto, so -- >> mr. clement, there is so many things in this act that are unquestionably okay. think you would concede that reauthorizing what is the indian healthcare improvement act, changes to black lung benefits, why make congress redo those? i mean, it's a question of whether we say everything you did is no good, now start from scratch, or to say, you know, there are many things in here that have nothing to do, frankly, with the affordable healthcare, and there are some that we think it's better to let congress to decide whether it wants them in or out. so why should we say, it's a choice between a wrecking operation, which is what you are requesting, or a salvage job. and the more conservative

approach would be salvage rather than throwing out everything. >> well, justice ginsburg, two kinds of responses to that. one, i do think there are some provisions that i would identify as being at the periphery of this statute, and i will admit that the case for severing those is perhaps the strongest. but i do think it is fundamentally different, because if we were here arguing that some provision on the periphery of the statute, like the biosimilars act or some of the provisions that you've mentioned was unconstitutional, i think you'd strike it down and you wouldn't even think hard about severability. what makes this different is that the provisions that have constitutional difficulties or are tied at the hip to those provisions that have the constitutional difficulty are the very heart of this act. and then if you look at how they are textually interconnected to the exchanges, which are then connected to the tax credits, which are also connected to the employer mandates, which is also

connected to some of the revenue offsets, which is also connected to medicaid, if you follow that through what you end up with at the end of that process is just sort of a hollow shell. and at that point i think there is a strong argument for not -- i mean, you can't possibly think that congress would have passed that hollow shell without the heart of the act. >> well, but it would have -- it would have passed parts of the hollow shell. i mean, a lot of this is reauthorization of appropriations that have been reauthorized for the previous 5 or 10 years and it was just more convenient for congress to throw it in in the middle of the 2700 pages than to do it separately. i mean, can you really suggest -- i mean, they've cited the black lung benefits act and those have nothing to do with any of the things we are talking about. >> well, mr. chief justice, they tried to make them germane. but i'm not here to tell you that -- some of their -- surely there are provisions that are just looking for the next legislative vehicle that is going to make it across the finish line and somebody's going to attach it to anything that is moving. i mean, i'll admit that. but the question is when

everything else from the center of the act is interconnected and has to go, if you follow me that far, then the question is would you keep this hollowed- out shell? >> well, but it's not -- >> but i'm still not sure, what is the test -- and this was the colloquy you had with justice scalia with the corn husker hypothetical. so i need to know what standard you are asking me to apply. is it whether as a rational matter separate parts could still function, or does it focus on the intent of the congress? if you -- suppose you had party a wants proposal number 1, party b wants proposal number 2. completely unrelated. one is airline rates, the other is milk regulation. and we -- and they decide them together. the procedural rules are these have to be voted on as one. they are both passed. then one is declared unconstitutional. the other can operate completely independently. now, we know that congress would not have intended to pass one without the other. is that the end of it, or is there some different test? because we don't want to go into legislative history,

that's intrusive, so we ask whether or not an objective -- as an objective rational matter one could function without -- i still don't know what the test is that we are supposed to apply. and this is the same question as justice scalia asked. could you give me some help on that? >> sure. justice kennedy, the reality is i think this court's opinions have at various times applied both strains of the analysis. >> and which one -- and what test do you suggest that we follow if we want to clarify our jurisprudence? >> i'm -- i'm a big believer in objective tests, justice kennedy. i would be perfectly happy with you to apply a more textually based objective approach. i think there are certain justices that are more inclined to take more of a peek at legislative history, and i think if you look at the legislative history of this it would only fortify the conclusion that you would reach from a very objective textual inquiry. but i am happy to focus the court on the objective textual

inquiry. >> i don't understand >> and that objective test is what? >> is whether the statute can operate in the manner that congress -- that congress intended. >> no statute can do that, because once we chop off a piece of it, by definition, it's not the statute congress passed. so it has to be something more than that. >> justice sotomayor, every one of your cases, if you have a formulation for severability, if you interpret it woodenly it becomes tautological. and justice blackmun addressed this in footnote 7 of the brock opinion that we rely on, where he says -- of course it's not just -- you know, it doesn't operate exactly in the manner because it doesn't have all the pieces, but you still make an inquiry as to whether when congress links two provisions together and one really won't work without the other -- >> so what is wrong with the presumption that our law says, which is we presume that congress would want to sever? wouldn't that be the simplest, most objective test? going past what justice scalia says we have done, okay, get rid of legislative intent altogether, which some of our colleagues in other contexts have promoted, and just say -- unless congress tells us directly, it's not severable,

we shouldn't sever. we should let them fix their problems. you still haven't asked -- answered me why in a democracy structured like ours, where each branch does different things, why we should involve the court in making the legislative judgment? >> justice sotomayor let me try to answer the specific question and then answer the big picture question. the specific question is, i mean, you could do that. you could adopt a new rule now that basically says, look, we've severed -- >> it's not a new rule. we presume. we've rebutted the presumption in some cases -- >> right. >> but some would call that judicial action. >> i think in fairness, though, justice sotomayor, to get to the point you are wanting to get to, you would have to ratchet up that presumption a couple of ticks on the scale, because the one thing -- >> and what's wrong with that? >> well, one thing that's wrong with that, which is still at a smaller level, is that's inconsistent with virtually every statement in every one of your severability opinions, which all talk about congressional intent. >> well, it's not inconsistent

with our practice, right, mr. clement? i mean, you have to go back decades and decades and decades, and i'm not sure even then you could find a piece of legislation that we refused to sever for this reason. >> i don't think that's right, justice kagan. i think there are more recent examples. a great example i think which sort of proves, and maybe is a segue to get to my broader point, is a case that involves a state statute, not a federal statute, but i don't think anything turns on that, is randall against sorrell, where this court struck down various provisions of the vermont campaign finance law. but there were other contribution provisions that were not touched by the theory that the court used to strike down the contribution limits. but this court at the end of the opinion said -- there is no way to think that the vermont legislator would have wanted these handful of provisions there on the contribution side, so we will strike down the whole thing. and if i could make the broader point, i mean, i think the reason it makes sense in the democracy with separation of powers to in some cases sever the whole thing is because sometimes a half a loaf is worse.

and a great example, if i dare say so, is buckley. in buckley this court looked at a statute that tried to, in a coherent way, strike down limits on contributions and closely related expenditures. this court struck down the ban on expenditures, left the contribution ban in place, and for 4 decades congress has tried to fix what's left of the statute, largely unsuccessfully, whereas it would have i think worked much better from a democratic and separation of powers standpoint if the court would have said -- look, expenditures are -- you can't limit expenditures under the constitution, the contribution provision is joined at the hip. give congress a chance to actually fix the problem. >> mr. clement -- >> could i ask you one question, which is a practical question. i take as a given your answer to justice kennedy, you are saying let's look at it objectively and say what congress has intended, okay? this is the mandate in the community, this is titles i and ii, the mandate, the community, pre-existing condition, okay? here's the rest of it,

you know, and when i look through the rest of it, i have all kinds of stuff in there. and i haven't read every word of that, i promise. as you pointed out, there is biosimilarity, there is breast feeding, there is promoting nurses and doctors to serve underserved areas, there is the class act, etcetera. what do you suggest we do? i mean, should we appoint a special master with an instruction? should we go back to the district court? you haven't argued most of these. as i hear you now, you're pretty close to the sg. i mean, you'd like it all struck down, but we are supposed to apply the objective test. i don't know if you differ very much. so what do you propose that we do other than spend a year reading all this and have you argument all this? >> right. what i would propose is the following, justice breyer, is you follow the argument this far and then you ask yourself whether what you have left is a hollowed-out shell or whether -- >> i would say the breast feeding act, the getting

doctors to serve underserved areas, the biosimilar thing and drug regulation, the class act, those have nothing to do with the stuff that we've been talking about yesterday and the day before, okay? so if you ask me at that level, i would say, sure, they have nothing to do with it, they could stand on their own. the indian thing about helping the underserved native americans, all that stuff has nothing to do. black lung disease, nothing to do with it, okay? so that's -- do you know what you have there? a total off-the-cuff impression. so that's why i am asking you, what should i do? >> what you should do, is let me say the following, which is follow me this far, which is mandatory, individual mandate is tied, as the government suggests, to guaranteed-issue and community rating, but the individual mandate, guaranteed- issue, and community rating together are the heart of this act. they are what make the exchanges work. the exchanges in turn are critical to the tax credits, because the amount of the tax credit is key to the amount of the policy price on the

exchange. the exchanges are also key to the employer mandate, because the employer mandate becomes imposed on an employer if one of the employees gets insurance on the exchanges. but it doesn't stop there. look at the medicare provision for dish hospitals, okay? these are hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of the needy. this isn't in title i. it's in the other part that you had in your other hand. but it doesn't work without the mandate, community rating and guaranteed-issue. >> well, can i ask you this, mr. clement. >> sure. >> what would your fallback position be if we don't accept the proposition that if the mandate is declared unconstitutional, the rest of the act, every single provision, has to fall? other proposed -- other dispositions have been proposed. there's the solicitor general's disposition, the recommended disposition to strike down the guaranteed issue and community rating provisions. one of the -one amicus says strike down all of title i, another says strike down all of title i and title ii. what -- what would you suggest? >> well, i -- i think what i

would suggest, justice alito -- i don't want to be unresponsive -- is that you sort of follow the argument through and figure out what in the core of the act falls. and then i guess my fallback would be if what's left is a hollowed-out shell, you could just leave that standing. if you want a sort of practical answer, i mean, i do think you could just -- you know, you could use justice breyer's off- the-cuff as a starting point and basically say, you know, title i and a handful of related provisions that are very closely related to that are really the heart of the act -- >> well, that's -- >> -- the bigger volume -- on the other hand, i mean, you could strike one and leave the other, but at a certain point -- i'm sorry, mr. chief justice. >> finish your certain point. >> at a certain point, i just think that, you know, the better answer might be to say, we've struck the heart of this act, let's just give congress a clean slate. if it's so easy to have that other big volume get reenacted, they can do it in a couple of days, it won't be a big deal. if it's not, because it's very -- [laughter] >> -- well, but -- i mean, you can laugh at me if you want,

but the point is, i rather suspect that it won't be easy. because i rather suspect that if you actually dug into that, there'd be something that was quite controversial in there and it couldn't be passed quickly >> but the reality >> -- and that's our whole point. >> the reality of the passage -- i mean, this was a piece of legislation which, there was -- had to be a concerted effort to gather enough votes so that it could be passed. and i suspect with a lot of these miscellaneous provisions that justice breyer was talking about, that was the price of the vote. put in the indian health care provision and i will vote for the other 2700 pages. put in the black lung provision, and i'll go along with it. that's why all -- many of these provisions, i think, were put in, not because they were unobjectionable. so presumably what congress would have done is they wouldn't have been able to put together, cobble together the votes to get it through. >> well, maybe that's right, mr. chief justice. and i don't want to, i mean, spend all my time on -- fighting over the periphery, because i do think there are some provisions that i think you would make, as an exercise of your own judgment, the judgment that once you've gotten rid of

the core provisions of this act, that you would then decide to let the periphery fall with it. but if you want to keep the periphery, that's fine. what i think is important, though, as to the core provisions of the act, which aren't just the mandate community rating and guaranteed issue, but include the exchanges, the tax credit, medicare and medicaid -- as to all of that, i think you do want to strike it all down to avoid a redux of buckley. if i could reserve the remainder of my time. >> thank you, mr. clement. mr. kneedler. >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court -- there should be no occasion for the court in this case to consider issues of severability, because as we argue, the -- the minimum coverage provision is fully consistent with article i of the constitution. but if the court were to conclude otherwise, it should reject petitioners' sweeping proposition that the entire act must fall if this one provision is held unconstitutional. as an initial matter, we believe the court should not even consider that question. the vast majority of the

provisions of this act do not even apply to the petitioners, but instead apply to millions of citizens and businesses who are not before the court -- >> how does your proposal actually work? your idea is that, well, they can take care of it themselves later. i mean, do you contemplate them bringing litigation and saying -- i guess the insurers would be the most obvious ones - without -- without the mandate, the whole thing falls apart, and we're going to bear a greater cost, and so the rest of the law should be struck down. and that's a whole other line of litigation? >> well, i -- i think the continuing validity of any particular provision would arise in litigation that would otherwise arise under that provision by parties who are actually -- >> but what cause of action is it? i've never heard of a severability cause of action. >> well, in the first place, i don't -- the point isn't that there has to be an affirmative cause of action to decide this. you could -- for example, to use the medicare reimbursement

issue is one of the things that this act does is change medicare reimbursement rates. well, the place where someone adjudicates the validity of medicare reimbursement rates is through the special statutory review procedure for that. and the same thing is true of the anti-injunction act -- >> mr. kneedler, there are some provisions which nobody would have standing to challenge. if the provision is simply an expenditure of federal money, it doesn't hurt anybody except the taxpayer, but the taxpayer doesn't have standing. that -- that just continues. even though it is -- it should -- it is so closely allied to what's been struck down that it ought to go as well. but nonetheless, that has to continue because there's nobody in the world that can challenge it. can that possibly be the law? >> i think that proves our point, justice scalia. this court has repeatedly said that just because there's -- no one may have standing to

challenge -- and particularly like tax credits or taxes which are challenged only after going through the anti-injunction act, just because no one has standing doesn't mean that someone must. but beyond that -- >> but those are provisions that have been legitimately enacted. the whole issue here is whether these related provisions have been legitimately enacted, or whether they are so closely allied to one that has been held to be unconstitutional that they also have not been legitimately enacted. you can't compare that to -- to cases dealing with a statute that nobody denies is constitutional. >> this case is directly parallel to the printz case, in our view. in that case, the court struck down several provisions of the brady act, but went on to say it had no business addressing the severability of other provisions that did not apply to the people before whom -- >> but -- >> what he's thinking of is this -- i think justice scalia

is thinking, i suspect, of -- imagine a tax which says, this tax, amount y, goes to purpose x, which will pay for half of purpose x. the other half will come from the exchanges somehow. that second half is unconstitutional. purpose x can't possibly be carried out now with only half the money. does the government just sit there collecting half the money forever because nobody can ever challenge it? you see, there -- if it were inextricably connected, is it enough to say, well, we won't consider that because maybe somebody else could bring that case and then there is no one else? i mean, is that >> yes, we think that is the proper way to proceed. severability -- >> mr. kneedler, it's not a choice between someone else bringing the case and a law staying in place.

and what we're really talking about, as justice sotomayor started this discussion, is who is the proper party to take out what isn't infected by the court's holding -- with all these provisions where there may be no standing, one institution clearly does have standing, and that's congress. and if congress doesn't want the provisions that are not infected to stand, congress can take care of it. it's a question of which -- which side -should the court say, we're going to wreck the whole thing, or should the court leave it to congress? >> we think the court should leave it to congress for two reasons. one is the point i'm making now about justiciability, or whether the court can properly consider it at all. and the second is, we think only a few provisions are inseverable from the minimum

coverage provision. i just would like to -- >> before you go, mr. kneedler, i'd like your answer to justice breyer's question. i think you were interrupted before you had a chance -- >> yes. no, we believe that in that case, the tax -- the tax provision should not be struck down. in the first place, the anti- injunction act would bar a direct suit to challenge it. it would be very strange to allow a tax to be struck down on the basis of a severability analysis. severability arises in a case only where it's necessary to consider what relief a party before the court should get. the only party -- >> suppose that there was - suppose there was a non- severability provision in this act. if one provision were to be held unconstitutional, then every single -- someone would have to bring a separate lawsuit challenging every single other provision in the act and say, well, one fell and the congress said it's all -- it's a package, it can't be separated. that's your position? >> the fact that -- that such a clause might make it easy

doesn't change the point. article iii jurisdictional problems apply to easy questions as well as hard questions. if i could just -- >> but there's no article iii jurisdictional problem in justice alito's hypothetical, that this is a remedial exercise of the court's power to explain the consequences of its judgment in this case. >> but this court had said that one has to have standing for every degree of relief that is sought. that was in davis, that was los angeles vs. lyons. >> mr. kneedler -- >> -- daimler/chrysler -- >> -- don't you think it's unrealistic to say leave it to congress, as though you're sending it back to congress for congress to consider it dispassionately -- on balance, should we have this provision or should we not have provision? that's not what it's going to be. it's going to be these provisions are in effect, even though you -- a lot of you never wanted them to be in effect, and you only voted for them because you wanted to get the heart of the -- of the act, which has now been cut out, but

nonetheless these provisions are the law, and you have to get the votes to overturn them. that's an enormously different question from whether you get the votes initially to put them into the law. what -- there is no way that this court's decision is not going to distort the congressional process. whether we strike it all down or leave some of it in place, the congressional process will never be the same. one way or another, congress is going to have to reconsider this, and why isn't it better to have them reconsider it -- what should i say -- in toto, rather than having some things already in the law which you have to eliminate before you can move on to consider everything on balance? >> we think, as a matter of judicial restraint, limits on equitable remedial power limit this court to addressing the

provision that has been challenged as unconstitutional and anything else that the plaintiff seeks as relief. here the only -- >> but when you say "judicial restraint" -- >> mr. kneedler, would you please >> justice kennedy. >> when you say judicial restraint, you are echoing the earlier premise that it increases the judicial power if the judiciary strikes down other provisions of the act. i suggest to you it might be quite the opposite. we would be exercising the judicial power if one act was -- one provision was stricken and the others remained to impose a risk on insurance companies that congress had never intended. by reason of this court, we would have a new regime that congress did not provide for, did not consider. that, it seems to me, can be argued at least to be a more extreme exercise of judicial power than to strike -than striking the whole.

>> i -- i think not, justice -- >> i just don't accept the premise. >> i think not, justice kennedy, and then i'll move on. but this is exactly the situation in printz. the court identified the severability questions that were -- that were briefed before the court as important ones but said that they affect people who are -- rights and obligations of people who are not before the court. >> mr. kneedler, move away from the issue of whether it's a standing question or not. >> right. >> make the assumption that's an -- that this is an issue of the court's exercise of discretion, because the last two questions had to do with what's wise for the court to do, not whether it has power to do it or not. >> right. that -- >> so, let's move beyond the power issue, which your answers have centered on, and give me a sort of policy. and i know that's a -that's a bugaboo word sometimes, but what should guide the court's

discretion? >> well, we think that matters of justiciability do blend into -- >> would you please -- >> no, i understand. >> i've asked you three times to move around that. >> -- blend into -- blend into discretion and, in turn, blend into the merits of the severability question. and as to that, just to answer a question that several justices have asked, we think that severability is a matter of statutory interpretation. it should be resolved by looking at the structure and the text of the act, and the court may look at legislative history to figure out what the text and structure mean with respect to severability. we don't >> mr. kneedler, what happened to the eighth amendment? you really want us to go through these 2,700 pages? [laughter] >> and do you really expect the court to do that? or do you expect us to give this function to our law clerks? >> is this not totally unrealistic? that we're going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one? >> well -- >> i thought the simple answer

was you don't have to because -- >> well, that is -- that is the -- >> -- what we have to look at is what congress said was essential, correct? >> that is correct, and i'd also like to -- going -- i just want to finish the thought i had about this being a matter of statutory interpretation. the court's task, we submit, is not to look at the legislative process to see whether the bill would have been -- would have passed or not based on the political situation at the time, which would basically convert the court into a function such as a whip count. that is not the court's function. >> and, mr. kneedler, that would be a revolution -- >> yes. >> -- in our severability law, wouldn't it? >> it would. >> i mean, we have never suggested that we're going to say, look, this legislation was a brokered compromise, and we're going to try to figure out exactly what would have happened in the complex parliamentary shenanigans that go on across the street and figure out whether they would have made a difference. instead, we look at the text that's actually given us. for some people, we look only at the text. it should be easy for justice

scalia's clerks. [laughter] >> i think -- i think that -- >> i don't care whether it's easy for my clerks. i care whether it's easy for me. [laughter] >> i think that -- i think that's exactly right. as i said, it is a question of statutory interpretation. >> well, how is that -what's exactly right? it's a question of statutory interpretation, that means you have to go through every line of the statute. i haven't heard your answer to justice scalia's question yet. >> well, i think in this case there is an easy answer, and that is, justice kagan pointed out that, that the act itself creates a sharp dividing line between the minimum coverage provision -the package of -- of reforms -- the minimum coverage provision along with the guaranteed issue and community rating. that is one package that congress deemed essential. >> how do you know that? where is this line? i looked through the whole act, i didn't read -- well -- >> it is in -- >> where is the sharp line? >> it is in congress's findings that the -- that the minimum coverage provision -without it,

the court -- the congress said, in finding (i), without that provision, people would wait to get insurance, and therefore -- and cause all the adverse selection problems that arise. >> no, no. that -that makes your case that the one provision should fall if the other does. it doesn't tell us anything about all the other provisions. >> well, i -- i think -- i think it does, because congress said it was essential to those provisions, but it conspicuously did not say that it was essential to other provisions. >> well -- >> may i ask you about the argument that's made in the economists' amicus brief? they say that the insurance reforms impose 10-year costs of roughly $700 billion on the insurance industry, and that these costs are supposed to be offset by about 350 billion in new revenue from the individual mandate and 350 billion from the medicaid expansion. now, if the 350 billion -- maybe you'll disagree with the numbers, that they're

fundamentally wrong, but assuming that they're in the ballpark, if the 350 million from the individual mandate were to be lost, what would happen to the insurance industry, which would now be in the -- in the hole for $350 billion over 10 years? >> i don't -- i mean, first of all, for the court to go beyond text and legislative history to try to figure out how the finances of the bill operate, it's like being the budget committee. but -- but we think the economists had added up the figures wrong. if there's medicaid expansion, the insurance -and the insurance companies are involved in that, they're going to be reimbursed for the -- >> but what if there isn't medicaid expansion? we've talked about the individual mandate, but does the government have a position on what should happen if the medicaid expansion is struck down? >> we don't -- we don't think that that would have any effect. and that could be addressed in the next argument. but we don't think that would have any effect on the -- on the rest of the -- on the rest of the act.

>> so, did -- the government's position is that if medicaid expansion is struck down, the rest of the act can operate -- >> yes. >> -- without it. >> yes. it's -- in the past, congress has expanded medicaid coverage without there being -- it's done it many times without there being a minimum coverage provision -- >> but i still don't understand where you are with the answer to justice alito's question. assume that there is a -- a substantial probability that the 350 billion plus 350 billion equals 7 is going to be cut in half if the individual mandate is stricken. assume there is a significant possibility of that. is it within the proper exercise of this court's function to impose that kind of risk? can we say that the congress would have intended that there be that kind of risk? >> well, we don't think it's in the court's place to look at the -- at the budgetary implications, and we also -- >> but isn't that -- isn't that the point, then, why we should

just assume that it is not severable? >> no. >> if we -- if we lack the competence to even assess whether there is a risk, then isn't this an awesome exercise of judicial power? >> no, i don't -- >> to say we're doing something and we're not telling you what the consequences might be? >> no, i don't think so, because when you -- when you're talking about monetary consequences, you're looking through the act, you're looking behind the act, rather than -- the court's function is to look at the text and structure of the act and what the substantive provisions of the act themselves mean. and if i could go past -- >> mr. kneedler, can i -- can you give us a prior case in -- that resembles this one in which we are asked to strike down what the other side says is the heart of the act, and yet leave in -- as you request, leave in effect the rest of it? have we ever -- most of our severability cases, you know,

involve one little aspect of the act. the question is whether the rest. when have we ever really struck down what was the main purpose of the act, and left the rest in effect? >> i think booker is the best example of that. in booker the mandatory sentencing provisions were central to the act, but the court said, congress would have preferred a statute without the mandatory provision in the act, and the court struck that, but the rest of the sentencing guidelines remained. >> i think the reason -- the reason the majority said that was that they didn't think that what was essential to the act was what had been stricken down, and that is the ability of the judge to say on his own what -- what the punishment would be. don't think that's a case where we struck -- where we excised the heart of the statute. you have another one? >> there is no example -- >> there is no example. this is really --

>> -- to our -- that we have found that suggests the contrary. >> this is really a case of first impression. i don't know another case where we have been confronted with this -- with this decision. can you take out the heart of the act and leave everything else in place? >> i would like to go to the heart of the act point in a moment. but what i'd like to say is this is a huge act with many provisions that are completely unrelated to market reforms and operate in different ways. and we think it would be extraordinary in this extraordinary act to strike all of that down because there are many provisions and it would be too hard to do it. >> i mean, i think it's not uncommon that congress passes an act, and then there are many titles, and some of the titles have nothing to do with the other titles. that's a common thing. and you're saying you've never found an instance where they are all struck out when they have nothing to do with each other. my question is, because i hear mr. clement saying something not too different from what you say.

he talks about things at the periphery. we can't reject or accept an argument on severability because it's a lot of work for us. that's beside the point. but do you think that it's possible for you and mr. clement, on exploring this, to get together and agree on -( laughter) -- [laughter] >> -- i mean, on a list of things that are, in both your opinions, peripheral. then you would focus on those areas where one of you thinks it's peripheral and one of you thinks it's not peripheral. and at that point, it might turn out to be far fewer than we are currently imagining, at which point we could hold an argument or figure out some way or somebody hold an argument and try to -- try to get those done. is that a pipe dream or is that a -- >> i -- i just don't think that is realistic. the court would be doing it without the parties, the millions of parties -- >> you can have a conference committee report afterwards,

maybe. [laughter] >> no, i just -- it just is not something that a court would ordinarily do. but i would like -- >> could you get back to the argument of -- of the heart? >> yes. >> striking down the heart, do we want half a loaf or a shelf. i think those are the two analogies -- >> right. and -- and i would like to discuss it again in terms of the text and structure of the act. we have very important indications from the structure of this act that the whole thing is not supposed to fall. the most basic one is, the notion that congress would have intended the whole act to fall if there couldn't be a minimum coverage provision is refuted by the fact that there are many, many provisions of this act already in effect without a minimum coverage provision. two point -- 2 and-a-half million people under 26 have gotten insurance by one of the insurance requirements. three point two billion dollars -- >> in anticipation of the minimum coverage. that's going to bankrupt the insurance companies, if not the states, unless this minimum coverage provision comes into effect. >> there is no reason to think

it's going to -- it's going to bankrupt anyone. the costs will be set to cover those -- to cover those amounts. >> i thought that the 26-year- olds were saying that they were healthy and didn't need insurance yesterday. so today they are going to bankrupt the -- >> two and a half million people would be thrown off the insurance roles if the court were to say that. congress made many changes to medicare rates that have gone into effect. for congress -- for the courts to have to unwind millions of medicare reimbursement rates. medicare has covered 32 million insurance -- preventive care visits by patients as a result of this act. >> all of that was based on the assumption that the mandate was constitutional. and if -- that certainly doesn't stop us from reaching our own determination on that. >> no, but what i'm saying is it's a question of legislative intent, and we have a very fundamental indication of legislative intent that congress did not mean the whole

act to fall if -without the minimum coverage provision, because we have many provisions that are operating now without that. but there's a further indication about why the line should be drawn where i've suggested, which is the package of these particular provisions. all the other provisions of the act would continue to advance congress's goal, the test that was articulated in booker, but it's been said in regan and other cases. you look to whether the other provisions can continue to advance the purposes of the act. here they unquestionably can. the public health -- the broad public health purposes of the act that are unrelated to the minimum coverage provision, but also that the other provisions designed to enhance access to affordable care. the employer responsibility provision, the credit for small businesses, which is already in effect, by the way, and affecting many small businesses -- >> but many people might not -- many of the people in congress might not have voted for those

provisions if the central part of this statute was not adopted. >> but that -- >> i mean, you know, you're -to say that we're effectuating the intent of congress is just unrealistic. once you've cut the guts out of it, who knows, who knows which of them were really desired by congress on their own and which ones weren't. >> the question for the court is congress having passed the law by whatever majority there might be in one house or the other, congress having passed the law, what at that point is -- is the legislative intent embodied in the law congress has actually passed? >> well, that's right. but the problem is, straight from the title, we have two complementary purposes, patient protection and affordable care. and you can't look at something and say this promotes affordable care, therefore, it's consistent with congress's intent. because congress had a balanced intent. you can't look at another provision and say this promotes patient protection without

asking if it's affordable. so, it seems to me if you ask what is going to promote congress's purpose, that's just an inquiry that you can't carry out. >> no, with respect, i disagree, because i think it's evident that congress's purpose was to expand access to affordable care. it did it in discrete ways. it did it by the penalty on employers that don't -- that don't offer suitable care. it did it by offering tax credits to small employers. it did it by offering tax credits to purchasers. all of those are a variety of ways that continue to further congress's goal. and most of all, medicaid, which is -- which is unrelated to the -- to the private insurance market altogether. and in adopting those other provisions governing employers and whatnot, congress built on its prior experience of using the tax code, which it is -for a long period of time, congress has subsidized -- >> i don't quite understand about the employers. about the employers. you're -- you are